That particular statement is in fact neither known to be true nor false for some definitions of the Muslim God, since there is no secular evidence for the existence nor non-existence of God for those definitions of the Muslim God.
But I agree with the point you are trying to make, that many people have false beliefs crucial to a societal institutions that cannot realistically be suppressed by heavy-handed censorship without also destroying meaning and satisfaction for many people, and also the society itself. And of course, holy texts often contradict themselves, yet some consider all of it true.
However, you are arguing against a strawman, since OP never claimed to have a solution, nor even that censorship was the appropriate response, not do I claim that either.
> However, you are arguing against a strawman, since OP never claimed to have a solution, nor even that censorship was the appropriate response, not do I claim that either.
OP strongly implied that it's easy to distinguish which claims should be censored and which claims should not be censored. This is complete fantasy.
They didn't claim anything that strong. They claimed that some COVID misinformation is easily identifiable as false. They were silent on many other statements, whereas you think they said that all statements are easily distinguishable as true or false. Indeed, it's complete fantasy, but you're arguing against a strawman.
But I agree with the point you are trying to make, that many people have false beliefs crucial to a societal institutions that cannot realistically be suppressed by heavy-handed censorship without also destroying meaning and satisfaction for many people, and also the society itself. And of course, holy texts often contradict themselves, yet some consider all of it true.
However, you are arguing against a strawman, since OP never claimed to have a solution, nor even that censorship was the appropriate response, not do I claim that either.