# "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:** 7
**Author:** ![Grumman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/43a26b/32.png) [@Grumman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grumman)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2010, 7:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-is-a-mean-streak-in-anyone-who-will-destroy-anothers-faith/561104/121 "2010-11-19T19:07:39Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > If there is no evidence in favor of a proposition, the default is to assume that the proposition is unproven - not true, not false, unproven. No. I am not agnostic about the existence of leprechauns. I am confident saying that according to all the evidence available to us, they don’t exist. > [@](#): > > Think of it like this - is there proof that other intelligent civilizations exist in other galaxies? There is speculation, but no definitive proof either way. Would you agree that the default position is **not** to assert “there are no other civilizations”? The difference is that we _have_ evidence that intelligent civilisations could exist in other galaxies, because we have proof that intelligent life can be created spontaneously - us. It does not violate any natural laws, and we know it can happen on its own, so it is reasonable to consider it probable, but currently unproven. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2010, 7:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-is-a-mean-streak-in-anyone-who-will-destroy-anothers-faith/561104/122 "2010-11-19T19:09:11Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Too bad for **Shodan** if he doesn’t. > Too bad for Christianity if he _does_. I’ve seen Christians smugly laugh at how X person will burn in hell. So I certainly don’t think he’s alone. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2010, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-is-a-mean-streak-in-anyone-who-will-destroy-anothers-faith/561104/123 "2010-11-19T20:18:00Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Chortling at the murder of an atheist proves what, exactly? That you didn’t read the post particularly well, apparently. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2010, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-is-a-mean-streak-in-anyone-who-will-destroy-anothers-faith/561104/124 "2010-11-19T20:22:11Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > That you didn’t read the post particularly well, apparently. > > Regards, > Shodan Allow me to translate for the Shodan Impared. “_What, lil’ ol’ me?_” ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2010, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-is-a-mean-streak-in-anyone-who-will-destroy-anothers-faith/561104/125 "2010-11-19T20:23:43Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Yep, it’s _atheists_ that have the mean streak. Thank you ever so much for this Pit-worthy off-topic slam attempt to hold up Ms. O’Hair as our spokesperson. > Pathetic. If you feel this is not appropriate for the forum, then report it. Otherwise, since it was **not** off-topic, save it. Look, I realize you don’t want to see any examples of why the aggressive asshole atheist is a recognizable type, especially on the SDMB, but nonetheless it is. Deal. Regards, Shodan ---
**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, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-is-a-mean-streak-in-anyone-who-will-destroy-anothers-faith/561104/126 "2010-11-19T20:25:22Z")
> [@Baboonanza](#): > > It is more than that. Most religions are so self-contradictory and claim such impossible events that they _cannot possibly be true_. There is absolutely nothing to convince me that any god is anything other than a fiction, simply one of billions of pieces of fiction invented by humanity in in it’s history. I don’t think that’s always the case. Chrisitanity has a lot of self-contradictions due to the way it originated. But Islam, for example, seems to be pretty consistent within 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 19, 2010, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-is-a-mean-streak-in-anyone-who-will-destroy-anothers-faith/561104/127 "2010-11-19T20:28:05Z")
There are a thousand pushy fundies for every O’Hair. ---
**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, 8:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-is-a-mean-streak-in-anyone-who-will-destroy-anothers-faith/561104/128 "2010-11-19T20:33:53Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > If there is no evidence in favor of a proposition, the default is to assume that the proposition is unproven - not true, not false, unproven. > > Think of it like this - is there proof that other intelligent civilizations exist in other galaxies? There is speculation, but no definitive proof either way. Would you agree that the default position is **not** to assert “there are no other civilizations”? Except we do have some evidence in this case. We know that an intelligent civilization is a possibility because we exist. There’s no equivalent evidence regarding God. > [@Shodan](#): > > Madlyn Murray O’Hair is the quintessential example of this - a person who seemed to base most of her life on an unfortunately successful campaign to be the biggest pain in the ass that she could manage. It rather backfired on her in the end, according to a biography of her that I read. Apparently she hired ex-convicts to work on her farm, since only people desperate for work would put up with her abuse. Unfortunately a couple of the ex-cons got the idea that she was hiding gold coins in a stash somewhere (apparently the way she handled donations to her atheist organization was a bit on the dodgy side) and the ex-cons killed her in an attempt to rob her. Others have already responded to this but O’Hair is no more representative of atheism than Fred Phelps is representative of Christianity. ---
**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, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-is-a-mean-streak-in-anyone-who-will-destroy-anothers-faith/561104/129 "2010-11-19T20:45:18Z")
> [@These are my own pants](#): > > 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. Do you agree that believers, by definition, do not believe solely through logic and evidence? Do you understand that it is not a matter of proof? Since atheism is a statement about lack of belief, it is perfectly possible for an atheist to be an atheist for purely emotional and non-logical reasons. But there are very good logical reasons to hold the position. I’m quite aware of the logical arguments for the existence of god, and know holes in all of them. ---
**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, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-is-a-mean-streak-in-anyone-who-will-destroy-anothers-faith/561104/130 "2010-11-19T20:56:28Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > If you feel this is not appropriate for the forum, then report it. Otherwise, since it was **not** off-topic, save it. > > Look, I realize you don’t want to see any examples of why the aggressive asshole atheist is a recognizable type, especially on the SDMB, but nonetheless it is. Deal. > > Regards, > Shodan Pray tell us which Doper you might find that is _anything_ like your cartoonish version of Ms. O’Hair. You are the one with the loaded deck-_you_ deal. ---
**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, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-is-a-mean-streak-in-anyone-who-will-destroy-anothers-faith/561104/131 "2010-11-19T21:12:03Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > If there is no evidence in favor of a proposition, the default is to assume that the proposition is unproven - not true, not false, unproven. That is wrong in several ways. First, the null hypothesis is often used in the design of experiments, and these never result in any type of proof. So, using proof is incorrect. In any case, it is not an assumption at all to say that something for which the experiment is not yet done is unproven, in fact it is as trivially true to say the thing to be demonstrated in a proof by contradiction is unproven. Of course it is, at the beginning, but the real assumption is that the think to be proven false is true. Now, as for gods, the null hypothesis that no god exists is quite simple and elegant. If you want to go the other way, which of the many types of gods should be assumed to exist as the null hypothesis? Even Christians believe in many varieties. How about gods which are unfalsifiable? Experiments are similar - the null hypothesis is that there is no effect, not that the effect is 10% or 15% or whatever. You don’t want a situation with a near infinite number of equally good null hypotheses, do you? > [@](#): > > Think of it like this - is there proof that other intelligent civilizations exist in other galaxies? There is speculation, but no definitive proof either way. Would you agree that the default position is **not** to assert “there are no other civilizations”? The null hypothesis here is clearly that there is none. I say that as someone who thinks it quite likely that there other civilizations. Those involved in SETI clearly think the same, since they are actively trying to falsify the null hypothesis, not asking doubters to prove that no other life exists. The null hypothesis is a tool in the demonstration of something, it is not a statement of belief. A theist who is prepared to argue for a god using logic should start at the null hypothesis of no gods as should any atheist. Where you go from there will differ. > [@](#): > > Madlyn Murray O’Hair is the quintessential example of this - a person who seemed to base most of her life on an unfortunately successful campaign to be the biggest pain in the ass that she could manage. It rather backfired on her in the end, according to a biography of her that I read. Apparently she hired ex-convicts to work on her farm, since only people desperate for work would put up with her abuse. Unfortunately a couple of the ex-cons got the idea that she was hiding gold coins in a stash somewhere (apparently the way she handled donations to her atheist organization was a bit on the dodgy side) and the ex-cons killed her in an attempt to rob her. > > _Sic transit gloria mundi._ > > Regards, > Shodan I assume you also think the people at the Stonewall were obnoxious jerks. Martin Luther King also. In an environment which stifles differences, you are more likely to find that the few who challenge the status quo are not necessarily people you want to have over for tea. And your pissing on her grave is disgusting. ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2010, 9:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-is-a-mean-streak-in-anyone-who-will-destroy-anothers-faith/561104/132 "2010-11-19T21:28:48Z")
> [@furt](#): > > Oh, certainly for specific individuals it might, though in cases like that you have to weigh how sad their unfulfilled sexual desires make them, versus how sad the loss of belief in an afterlife might make them, then consider how happy they are now with other aspects of their life versus how likely they are to be as an atheist … it’s all quite complicated, and involves lots of assuming we know what’s best for other people. > > Consider a 50 year old man who all his life has been attracted to other me, but has resisted it because of his fundamentalist religious upbringing. The loss of his belief might help him finally be at peace with his sexuality. It would also likely end his twenty-year marriage to a woman he does love (even if he is sexually conflicted), awkward relationships with his 10 year old sons, falling-out with his parents and family, social upheaval (most of his friends went to church), etc. etc. > > Even operating under atheist assumptions, most of the time, you really can’t say with confidence that someone would be happier or more fulfilled without their faith. > > OTOH, a religious believer truly does think he has found the key to _eternal_ bliss, so that he is 100% certain that no matter how happy you are now, you will nonetheless be happier if you have faith. He may be wrong, but under his assumptions he really is acting in your interest, even if he’s doing it in a dickish way. > > The aggressive atheist, OTOH, is usually being a dick even in his motives (which is part of why you almost never see them anywhere but on the internet). You know there are churches out there who don’t teach that gays are going to hell, right? And that said guy could still believe in God and be gay, right? Or, he could be an atheist and a closet case. An agressive ANYTHING is being a dick. Yeesh. ---
**Author:** ![CurtC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ce73a5/32.png) [@CurtC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CurtC)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2010, 9:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-is-a-mean-streak-in-anyone-who-will-destroy-anothers-faith/561104/133 "2010-11-19T21:51:45Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > Others have already responded to this but O’Hair is no more representative of atheism than Fred Phelps is representative of Christianity. I’m not OK with comparing O’Hair and Phelps. O’Hair was certainly aggressive and abrasive, but there were things that needed to be fixed really badly, and the truth is that it took an aggressive person to fix them. In spite of her personality flaws, she had a record of doing really good work. ---
**Author:** ![VinylTurnip](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/b2d939/32.png) [@VinylTurnip](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VinylTurnip)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2010, 10:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-is-a-mean-streak-in-anyone-who-will-destroy-anothers-faith/561104/134 "2010-11-19T22:25:15Z")
> [@Kearsen](#): > > Could you not just imagine god to look like Megan Fox? Slightly greasy, with vacant eyes? Sure, I guess… ---
**Author:** ![kevlaw](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kevlaw/32/2281_2.png) [@kevlaw](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kevlaw)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2010, 10:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-is-a-mean-streak-in-anyone-who-will-destroy-anothers-faith/561104/135 "2010-11-19T22:31:04Z")
In case there is anyone who still. Ares about the topic… > [@Trom](#): > > I am an atheist and my girlfriend is a cafeteria/haven’t-really-thought-about-it type of Catholic. When we recently talked about religion, it got pretty heated. Part of the problem is she views her religious beliefs as an integral part of “who she is.” And that I should accept that. After all, she accepts me as an atheist. Part of me wants to argue and point out all the things I think are wrong about about her theism. I’m pretty confident I could shred most of her arguments to pieces. However, the process would undoubtedly cause her emotional distress - and I do not want that. > > ) Your situation is similar to mine 20 years ago. I love discussing religion with people who want to discuss it - but my wife is just not one of those people. I don’t think any good could come from forcing the point. 20 years later and my wife is functionally atheist but nominally still catholic. One child is full bore atheist and the other is too young to have thought about it very much - though she is fascinated by the topic. I’m confident that she’ll make the right choices when the time comes. I might give different advice if your wife was a a fire and brimstone type, but since she is not… Let it go dude… Talk about it if she brings it up. ---
**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, 10:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-is-a-mean-streak-in-anyone-who-will-destroy-anothers-faith/561104/136 "2010-11-19T22:34:15Z")
> [@CurtC](#): > > I’m not OK with comparing O’Hair and Phelps. O’Hair was certainly aggressive and abrasive, but there were things that needed to be fixed really badly, and the truth is that it took an aggressive person to fix them. In spite of her personality flaws, she had a record of doing really good work. Only to the extent that you had a pre-existing belief that O’Hair was right and Phelps is wrong (which admittedly I do). Then you can argue that O’Hair was aggressive and abrasive but justified because she was right and was fixing things while Phelps is aggressive and abrasive but isn’t justified because he’s right and isn’t fixing things. But if you take the premise (just for the sake of argument) that God really does exist and hates homosexuality enough to cause wars and natural disasters, then Phelps is doing good work. He could justify his actions by agreeing that he’s highly offensive but he’s willing to sacrifice his reputation and make some people unhappy if that’s what it take to prevent tens of thousands of deaths. ---
**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 19, 2010, 10:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-is-a-mean-streak-in-anyone-who-will-destroy-anothers-faith/561104/137 "2010-11-19T22:51:48Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > But if you take the premise (just for the sake of argument) that God really does exist and hates homosexuality enough to cause wars and natural disasters, then Phelps is doing good work. He could justify his actions by agreeing that he’s highly offensive but he’s willing to sacrifice his reputation and make some people unhappy if that’s what it take to prevent tens of thousands of deaths. No; that just means that God is evil too. ---
**Author:** ![Cheshire\_Human](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/5f8ce5/32.png) [@Cheshire\_Human](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheshire_Human)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2010, 11:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-is-a-mean-streak-in-anyone-who-will-destroy-anothers-faith/561104/138 "2010-11-19T23:47:15Z")
> [@Thudlow\_Boink](#): > > Is there some SDMB rule that every discussion related somehow to religion must inevitably degenrate into an argument over the definition of atheism? It’s the “Weak Godwin’s Law”. ---
**Author:** ![AClockworkMelon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aclockworkmelon/32/10803_2.png) [@AClockworkMelon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AClockworkMelon)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2010, 12:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-is-a-mean-streak-in-anyone-who-will-destroy-anothers-faith/561104/139 "2010-11-20T00:11:40Z")
I’m an atheist quick to argue religion but I give my loved ones slack. Just the way it is. I’d rather have my friends than my atheism. And no, that doesn’t make me any less of an atheist. Edit: Thought this thread was only a page long! ---
**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 20, 2010, 1:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-is-a-mean-streak-in-anyone-who-will-destroy-anothers-faith/561104/140 "2010-11-20T01:04:19Z")
> [@Cheshire\_Human](#): > > It’s the “Weak Godwin’s Law”. Shouldn’t that be “Weak noGodwin’s Law?” [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-is-a-mean-streak-in-anyone-who-will-destroy-anothers-faith/561104.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-is-a-mean-streak-in-anyone-who-will-destroy-anothers-faith/561104.md?page=8)