# "There is a mean streak in anyone who will destroy another's faith." **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 18, 2010, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-is-a-mean-streak-in-anyone-who-will-destroy-anothers-faith/561104 "2010-11-18T16:04:49Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2010, 11:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-is-a-mean-streak-in-anyone-who-will-destroy-anothers-faith/561104/61 "2010-11-18T23:09:09Z")
> [@These are my own pants](#): > > Is atheism a direct result of first-order logic? Yes.It is the logical default. the starting point. > [@](#): > > Is it proven by empiricism? I would say no to both counts. It’s not something that needs to be “proven,” because it makes no positive assertion. It’s an absence of belief, not a belief in itself. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2010, 11:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-is-a-mean-streak-in-anyone-who-will-destroy-anothers-faith/561104/62 "2010-11-18T23:12:37Z")
> [@These are my own pants](#): > > What evidence is there for his postion? The lack of evidence for a statement does not prove its negation. His “position” is simply that there isn’t any evidence for sky gods. That’s not anything that requires evidence. It’s just an observation that theists have not produced evidence for their own extraordinary claims. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2010, 11:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-is-a-mean-streak-in-anyone-who-will-destroy-anothers-faith/561104/63 "2010-11-18T23:14:58Z")
> [@NDP](#): > > What do you mean by “grovel”? Just out of curiosity, if an atheist converses with someone he or she knows to be religious, what kind of thing would you consider to be groveling? Pretending to false respect for foolish beliefs, lying about how you consider their viewpoint just as reasonable, not complaining about or arguing against conversion attempts, putting up without complaint with anti-atheist disdain and insults, publicly agreeing with the lies of religious apologists in order to fit in. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Hamster\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8edcca/32.png) [@The\_Hamster\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Hamster_King)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2010, 11:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-is-a-mean-streak-in-anyone-who-will-destroy-anothers-faith/561104/64 "2010-11-18T23:25:41Z")
> [@NDP](#): > > Just out of curiosity, if an atheist converses with someone he or she knows to be religious, what kind of thing would you consider to be groveling? Acting as though religious beliefs deserve to be treated differently than any other sort of belief. ---
**Author:** ![Kinthalis](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kinthalis/32/16084_2.png) [@Kinthalis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kinthalis)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2010, 11:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-is-a-mean-streak-in-anyone-who-will-destroy-anothers-faith/561104/65 "2010-11-18T23:41:17Z")
> [@The\_Hamster\_King](#): > > Acting as though religious beliefs deserve to be treated differently than any other sort of belief. IMHO, more specifically: Acting as though religious beliefs deserve to be treated differently than any other sort of [ridiculous] belief. ---
**Author:** ![John\_DiFool](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_difool/32/19543_2.png) [@John\_DiFool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_DiFool)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2010, 11:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-is-a-mean-streak-in-anyone-who-will-destroy-anothers-faith/561104/66 "2010-11-18T23:42:07Z")
> [@Kinthalis](#): > > I love it. Bringing down the religious to the same level as a dying 5 year old and their belief in Santa. > > 100% correct, IMHO. > > Terrified people grasping at straws from which to weave a blanket of comfort. > > I say let them have their comforting blanket of ignorance… at least until they try to suffocate you under it. And many will. Except of course that in authentic religion, the ego isn’t comforted. The ego is toast. ---
**Author:** ![suranyi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e36b37/32.png) [@suranyi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/suranyi)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2010, 11:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-is-a-mean-streak-in-anyone-who-will-destroy-anothers-faith/561104/67 "2010-11-18T23:57:31Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > As someone once said, “happiness alone isn’t enough, unless you are a cow.” > > And really, I fail to see how feeding people false hope and convincing them to commit to a self destructive, irrational ideology just so you can feel all benevolent and self righteous isn’t “meaner” than an atheist trying to convince someone of the truth. Are you this confrontational even with close relatives and friends? ---
**Author:** ![Trom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/958977/32.png) [@Trom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trom)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2010, 12:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-is-a-mean-streak-in-anyone-who-will-destroy-anothers-faith/561104/68 "2010-11-19T00:26:50Z")
> [@Boyo\_Jim](#): > > If I dare speak for Bricker, he means that it’s not much of a supposition to make nor much of an accomplishment, to shred the arguments of someone who hasn’t given any serious thought about backing them up. Hmm… Kind of odd. I wasn’t at all trying to brag. [Quote=Boyo Jim] The bolded part is IMO your most interesting comment, and it proves the truth of the OP title _up to a point_. Your are not satisfied with an agreement you made to keep this subject off the table. The may certainly be legitimate instances where you may feel called upon to revisit the subject. For instance if she bases some decision that you disagree with on her vague religious beliefs, you certainly should be able to criticize those beliefs while trying to change her mind. But I assume that’s not what you mean. so I have to ask – why do you feel this way? [/quote] Actually, that is what I mean. Those times when decisions are made or actions performed are the times at which I have agreed to state my opinion and leave it at that. > [@Boyo Jim](#): > > At a guess, I think you respect her less because she has these beliefs, and you think less of her. Perhaps if you can teach her the errors of her thinking, she will be more fit in your eyes. Perhaps you just like to pick at silly ideas. Sure, I enjoy debating and arguing as much as the next Doper. But, my goal is not to win at all costs, lay on the snark, and ride into the sunset with my chin in the air. Rather, I legitimately enjoy productive dialog. For example, my girlfriend and I both have an environmentalist side to us. She was able to convince me that being a vegetarian is far more ecologically sustainable than eating meat every day. We debated it, I researched it, and I came to the conclusion she’s right. I now eat far less meat. What I find dissatisfying is the agreement to rule out any chance at such dialog with my significant other on the topic of religion. At the same time, if the alternative is breaking up, I’ll choose to keep my mouth shut. > [@Boyo Jim](#): > > What I’m really saying is that you do go out of your way to raise the subject and attack her ideas, you probably DO have a mean streak. I don’t think that’s entirely bad. I think I have one myself – once in a while I like to make people (who I generally don’t much like anyway) squirm. Schadenfreude – we all indulge on occasion. Yes, I do this on occasion with people. Though I recognize there are certain people and/or times for such verbal jousts. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2010, 12:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-is-a-mean-streak-in-anyone-who-will-destroy-anothers-faith/561104/69 "2010-11-19T00:48:03Z")
> [@NDP](#): > > What do you mean by “grovel”? Just out of curiosity, if an atheist converses with someone he or she knows to be religious, what kind of thing would you consider to be groveling? “Golly, since we can’t know for certain who is right, why don’t we just agree to disagree.” Which is something most people wouldn’t say to someone who put forth that electricity was really caused by magic spells thrown by invisible wizards, even though this is a damn sight more believable than some of the self-contradictory stuff put out by a lot of religionists. ---
**Author:** ![Asympotically\_fat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e47c2d/32.png) [@Asympotically\_fat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Asympotically_fat)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2010, 12:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-is-a-mean-streak-in-anyone-who-will-destroy-anothers-faith/561104/70 "2010-11-19T00:49:20Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > This is just incorrect. He means that religion is not a necessity for human happiness. I would like to see a cite that it’s necessary for _anybody_. Have I said it is necessary? No, what I am saying is that Dawkins is wrong to use his own happiness as an example as he exists in a highly, highly unrepresenative situation. > [@](#): > > Youy’re the one trying to draw a correlation between poverty and a need for faith in order to be happy. I say prove it. Again, no I’m not. I’m saying that people living in situations far better than the vast majority of the population of the World perhaps should not be preaching to others about what they do and don’t need to be happy. > [@](#): > > Yet religious proselytizers say it all the time. And how is it relevant if they do? > [@](#): > > I am not aware of Dawkins saying this. Can you provide the exact quote. Maybe I am misrepresenting Dawkins postion slightly here as what he actually said was “How can you take seriously someone who likes to believe something because he finds it ‘comforting’?” in response to Peter Kay’s statement that he believed in God because he found it comforting. Still he is extremely dismissive of people who use religion as a comfort. > [@](#): > > This is factually incorrect. Atheism is not a belief and cannot be a faith. Even if you think a particular atheist is intolerant of theists, that doesn’t make atheism a faith. My opinion is that it is a belief, at least in the form that Dawkins espouses. I am not a religious person myself, but often don’t see much difference between Dawkins’ zealotry and the zealotry of those he opposes. ---
**Author:** ![Asympotically\_fat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e47c2d/32.png) [@Asympotically\_fat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Asympotically_fat)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2010, 1:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-is-a-mean-streak-in-anyone-who-will-destroy-anothers-faith/561104/71 "2010-11-19T01:01:54Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Yes.It is the logical default. the starting point. It is not a result of first order logic as there is no reason to make a special distinction between a statement and it’s negation. They are both equally statements with the special relationship that if one is true then the other must be false. [QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic] It’s not something that needs to be “proven,” because it makes no positive assertion. It’s an absence of belief, not a belief in itself. [/QUOTE] Well this is it for me. I don’t see much difference between believing in an unprovable statement and believing in the negation of the statement, which must be equally unprovable. ---
**Author:** ![Asympotically\_fat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e47c2d/32.png) [@Asympotically\_fat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Asympotically_fat)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2010, 1:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-is-a-mean-streak-in-anyone-who-will-destroy-anothers-faith/561104/72 "2010-11-19T01:09:03Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Claims about gods are mostly outright logically incoherent - the Christian omnimax God and the Problem of Evil being a well known example. And given all the mutually contradictory claims made by the religious, most must be false. And it is a logical rule that the person claiming something exists is the one obligated to come up with evidence, not for the skeptic to disprove a negative. What if they are incoherent. It doesn’t go anyway to proving the atheist psotion. > [@](#): > > As for empiricism; there isn’t any room for a god in the laws of physics. At least, not for a “god” that is anything other than an alien with cool technology. And claiming that “God cannot be detected and exists outside the laws of physics” is about as un-empirical as it is possible to get. Physics, I believe, is a process by which empirical results are used to formulate mathematical models which make empricial predictions. For me the belief that this is the path to higher truths is just that, i.e. a belief. I think physics doesn’t really have much to say about God, other than in regards to specific claims made by some religious people. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2010, 1:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-is-a-mean-streak-in-anyone-who-will-destroy-anothers-faith/561104/73 "2010-11-19T01:10:47Z")
> [@These are my own pants](#): > > Is atheism a direct result of first-order logic? Is it proven by empiricism? I would say no to both counts. That is of course not what he said. First, very few or no atheists claim to be able to prove the nonexistence of god, since there are so many god varieties out there. Some classes of gods are logically inconsistent, and trivial to disprove, others are basically equivalent to no god at all, as far as we can tell. If you believe by faith, then by definition you do not believe either through facts or logic. If you claim that logic and/or facts support your god belief, please present them - and also be sure to able to explain why whatever process you use to support your belief can’t be used to support the beliefs of those who accept quite different gods. ---
**Author:** ![Asympotically\_fat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e47c2d/32.png) [@Asympotically\_fat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Asympotically_fat)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2010, 1:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-is-a-mean-streak-in-anyone-who-will-destroy-anothers-faith/561104/74 "2010-11-19T01:15:58Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > That is of course not what he said. First, very few or no atheists claim to be able to prove the nonexistence of god, since there are so many god varieties out there. Some classes of gods are logically inconsistent, and trivial to disprove, others are basically equivalent to no god at all, as far as we can tell. > > If you believe by faith, then by definition you do not believe either through facts or logic. If you claim that logic and/or facts support your god belief, please present them - and also be sure to able to explain why whatever process you use to support your belief can’t be used to support the beliefs of those who accept quite different gods. I haven’t said I believe in anything. I suppose my postion simply is that I can’t think of any great reasons to give primacy to the atheist postion. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2010, 1:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-is-a-mean-streak-in-anyone-who-will-destroy-anothers-faith/561104/75 "2010-11-19T01:23:58Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > It seems to me that if a person loses his faith and is unhappy as a result, then that person really hasn’t lost his faith. I don’t think this is necessarily true. If I lost my right arm, I’d be unhappy about it. But I’d still be missing my arm. There are devout people who lose their faith. They may go through the motions of their religion afterwards but they can be desolated by the feeling that it no longer means anything. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2010, 1:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-is-a-mean-streak-in-anyone-who-will-destroy-anothers-faith/561104/76 "2010-11-19T01:28:03Z")
> [@furt](#): > > In contrast, I seldom hear an atheist argue that lack of religious belief makes people happier, or more content, more peaceful. They may make arguments for how it will better society in general, but IME they generally are not trying to claim that the specific person they are speaking to will be happier. Some may, but I’ve seldom if ever heard it. How about a homosexual whose religion teaches him homosexuality is a sin? Or a person in a bad marriage whose religion teaches her that divorce is a sin? They might be happier if they lost their religious beliefs and didn’t have to worry about the supernatural consequences of their actions. ---
**Author:** ![NDP](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ndp/32/55_2.png) [@NDP](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NDP)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2010, 1:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-is-a-mean-streak-in-anyone-who-will-destroy-anothers-faith/561104/77 "2010-11-19T01:54:52Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Pretending to false respect for foolish beliefs, lying about how you consider their viewpoint just as reasonable, not complaining about or arguing against conversion attempts, putting up without complaint with anti-atheist disdain and insults, publicly agreeing with the lies of religious apologists in order to fit in. [QUOTE=The Hamster King] Acting as though religious beliefs deserve to be treated differently than any other sort of belief. [/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Czarcasm] “Golly, since we can’t know for certain who is right, why don’t we just agree to disagree.” Which is something most people wouldn’t say to someone who put forth that electricity was really caused by magic spells thrown by invisible wizards, even though this is a damn sight more believable than some of the self-contradictory stuff put out by a lot of religionists. [/QUOTE] How about if you say: Look, I’m not going to convince you and you’re not going to convince me so it’s utterly pointless to keep arguing about this. Instead, less discuss something less heated and divisive like abortion or gun control. ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2010, 2:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-is-a-mean-streak-in-anyone-who-will-destroy-anothers-faith/561104/78 "2010-11-19T02:44:52Z")
> [@Trom](#): > > I suppose the thing that gets under my skin is the fact that she is very inquisitive in other areas of her life - politics, social issues, economics, etc. But, for whatever reason, religion is off-limits. If those day-to-day issues are worth further examination, surely the grounds on which a person bases their entire _worldview_ should be subject to intensive inquiry. No? > > I don’t treat the issue with a “nyah-nyah, gotcha!” attitude. I’ve tried analogies, illustrative scenarios, and other comparison-type approaches. For whatever reason even these methods, which in other topics of study are just fine, are somehow perceived to be mean. I guess it boils down to my frustration with the special, off-limits status afforded to religious belief. She sounds like I did up to about ten years ago. I was uncomfortable talking about religion, though I would have pinky-sworn that I totally believed in God. Totally! I just didn’t need to talk about it, man, because well, I totally believed! But I hated going to mass and I hated when anyone mentioned God and I hated saying grace and I hated praying (and never did it), and I hated reading the Bible and I hated every single thing about all religious expression except Christmas carols. And when I finally thought about it, I realized that I was an atheist in Catholic clothing my entire life and that I had been avoiding that topic alone because I knew it was so tenuous in its hold on me. I woke up a Catholic and went to bed an atheist, and I’ve never looked back since. I’m not saying this is true of her, but boy did that look familiar. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![suranyi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e36b37/32.png) [@suranyi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/suranyi)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2010, 2:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-is-a-mean-streak-in-anyone-who-will-destroy-anothers-faith/561104/79 "2010-11-19T02:50:51Z")
> [@NDP](#): > > How about if you say: > Look, I’m not going to convince you and you’re not going to convince me so it’s utterly pointless to keep arguing about this. Instead, less discuss something less heated and divisive like abortion or gun control. Or, even more likely in my experience: It’s pointless to keep arguing about this, so let’s discuss the best pizza joints in town. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2010, 3:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-is-a-mean-streak-in-anyone-who-will-destroy-anothers-faith/561104/80 "2010-11-19T03:00:38Z")
> [@These are my own pants](#): > > Have I said it is necessary? No, what I am saying is that Dawkins is wrong to use his own happiness as an example as he exists in a highly, highly unrepresenative situation. He doesn’t use his own happiness as an example. > [@](#): > > Again, no I’m not. I’m saying that people living in situations far better than the vast majority of the population of the World perhaps should not be preaching to others about what they do and don’t need to be happy. It’s not preaching to say you _don’t_ need something, and it’s said in response to people telling those same people they DO need Relion X to be happy. > [@](#): > > And how is it relevant if they do? Because it’s fair to call bullshit on them when they do. which is all Dawkins does, > [@](#): > > Maybe I am misrepresenting Dawkins postion slightly here as what he actually said was “How can you take seriously someone who likes to believe something because he finds it ‘comforting’?” in response to Peter Kay’s statement that he believed in God because he found it comforting. Still he is extremely dismissive of people who use religion as a comfort. He’s correct in saying that it’s difficult to take someone seriously who shows such a lack of intellectual rigor or self-reflection. > [@](#): > > My opinion is that it is a belief, at least in the form that Dawkins espouses. Your “opnion” is factually incorrect. Atheism is not a belief. If you disagree, please tell me exactly what belief it expresses. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-is-a-mean-streak-in-anyone-who-will-destroy-anothers-faith/561104.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-is-a-mean-streak-in-anyone-who-will-destroy-anothers-faith/561104.md?page=5)