*Your Hitchens quote when you first entered this thread
*No if you think that, then you miss the point completely of what im saying
*And others have claimed that proponents of atheism has led them to faith... or renewed their faith. So?
I don't even know where to start. Literally... And I don't really see a point to figuring it out as when I do you will probably just ignore the parts of my argument you don't like and make some new accusations based on what you think I'm saying rather than what I'm actually saying.
If you feel like continuing try to take the time to understand that my views are somewhat more nuanced than what you claim.
Why do you think the net effect would be incredibly small? I think the far more logical likelihood is that non-Muslim Westerners purposefully ridiculing the muslim faith will have quite a large net effect, particularly when coupled with Western military action in Muslim countries.
Chnage from believers to non-believers has to come from within the Muslim community - not from non-Muslims ridiculing 1.5 billion people. Jesus.
I can't see how you can possibly think that mass, purposeful ridicule from people of a different faith and culture and ethnicity, when tensions are already high, is going to lead to Muslims changing their beliefs. It's just going to make people even more entrenched.
Your beliefs seem very illogical and generally fudgeing ridiculous.
It's been said by people much more informed than me, probably somewhat smarter than me and certainly more religious than me that what Islam needs is a reformation of sorts. The reformation (and following centuries) toned down Christianity to it's current, somewhat more tolerant and acceptable form. Far from perfect, but a step in the right direction.
Christianity has been dragged kicking and screaming into the modern world. Along each step people have complained that their religious freedom was offended or taken away from them by those that criticised. Unsurprisingly change has been largely generational. It has not quietly evolved into a more peaceful religion by bystanders being polite and the quiet moderate masses changing their minds in peace. What the grandfathers though unthinkable, blasphemy, ungodly and so on the grandchildren accept with open hearts. Not because people have shut up and let moderates think really hard about it. But because there's been critical voices all along that have influenced the younger generations. That's pretty much how dogmatic beliefs change.
I don't think Scara, or many other people, are primarily talking about mass, purposeful ridicule for the sake of ridcule. And I certainly don't think that's what we're seeing in public discource on this matter.
It's about pointing out the ridiculous in doctrines that are incompatible with our views on morality. It's about claiming the right to ridicule that which people say can't or shouldn't be ridiculed. Partly for that very reason, because they're saying we can't and because others still are threathening with violence. It's about accepting that some of the things said as criticism of religions will be seen as offensive, as ridicule or even as hateful. But that this is not a reason in itself to stop saying those things. The validity of the criticism must be looked at. But the claims that "this is offensive/ridicule" stops that in it's tracks. Because the discussion can no longer go on and the person that criticised can now be ignored as he's just "offensive".
To quote Stephen Fry:
“It's now very common to hear people say, 'I'm rather offended by that.' As if that gives them certain rights. It's actually nothing more... than a whine. 'I find that offensive.' It has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. 'I am offended by that.' Well, so fudging what."
It's rather long, and there's no video. But a discussion between Hitchens and Fry on why the right to say offensive things is so important here:
I can promise you, their opinions are not ridiculous. And no the point is not to be offensive for the sake of being offensive.
