I don't mean an inkling that it's false, or that you believe it to be so because you believe yours is true. I mean, say, proof that it's false. Proof that, say, the founder lied and made up stuff, that none of it is true. Or other things like that, things that you can show to someone.

Do you then tell someone who follows that religion? Would it be right to destroy their beliefs because of facts? Or should you just let them go on believing it? Is it better to let them keep their belief system, so that their life isn't shattered, even if it means they'll likely spread the belief to others, such as their children?

Is a happiness based on lies better than truth?

My suspicion between the large schism between the two sides that seems apparent here is that there's a more fundamental issue that is influencing peoples' choices.

I believe it all comes down to whether someone places faith, or truth, as the most important for these situations.

People who feel faith is most important seem like they would not be likely to encourage telling someone if their religion is false. That the act of having faith, even in something untrue, is somehow worthwhile on it's own.

The ones who think truth is more important seem to be completely on the side of divulging the information, so that someone may make a more informed choice.

There are, of course, a few responses rooted in practicality, and a few others questioning the basic question asked in this node. Obviously, a mental exercise isn't going to yield anything valuable if someone doesn't accept the basic assumptions.