>> Fine, I don't want them to change; they may continue to believe in whatever (e.g. fairy-tales in Qurans/Bibles, like muhammad flew to heaven on a horse and met allah and came back to tell them his travel story) they choose to believe in. I don't have much problem with what anyone wishes to believe. But the issue doesn't stop there.
You seem to have at least some kind of issue with that otherwise why would you feel the need to ridicule some world views in the way you did right now? To me it seems like you are 'fine' with it on a rational level (System 2) but your subconscious (System 1) seems to betray you at least some of the time. I would argue that this is a crucial aspect that makes conflict solving more difficult than it needs to be.
>> What would you say about the believers in Nazism?
Thank you for bringing this up. I think those dark times actually provide a good example for the argument I am trying to make. How many of the people in Germany were 'believers' and how many were just playing along? To be honest, I can't know but neither can you. However, looking at the behavior of the German people after WWII it seems like not too many believers were actually left. Humans are not inherently fanatics nor idealists, most of us are pragmatists who are trying to live a meaningful life and cling to that which provides us some meaning. Hitler was good with that. He told a story that was easy or nice to believe for the Germans. It padded their self-esteem and provided some meaning for everyone (if you were German of course). So I really do believe that Germans were not bad people per se but lead astray by an enticing story that promised something more than what had been there. That doesn't JUSTIFY anything but I think it explains the dynamics that we have observed.
I agree with your sentiment that this story (let's call it: fanatism) was shown to not be aligned with the reality of 'nature'. There is simply too much variety and change in the world for one world view to dominate. Sometimes it takes longer (Roman empire), sometimes shorter (Third Reich) for nature to find a way to tip the scales again. Nothing is forever but change. So I do think we share some ground here.
>> What kind of level playing field can we even expect to have if we are forced to tolerate the intolerant religious elements making violent reactions to any thoughts expressed? (e.g. killing the Charlie Hebdo staff just they expressed some thoughts that the religious people found offending) What kind of level playing field would you have offered to Nazis?
So it seems like you try to view this situation through the lens of game theory and approximate the situation to common prisoners dilemma game. You are choosing the strategy of don't cooperate because you simply can't see that the other side will cooperate. This is all very rational if you accept that it's a single shot game or that there is no way the other side would change. However, you also destroy the potential pay offs of cooperating because the other side is in the similar situation as you, having very similar thoughts. You pre-deterime the outcome.
So what I am suggesting is that - even when it is sometimes very difficult - if we want change to happen we need to stop pre-dertmining the outcome and start to acknowledge that life is not simple, not black or white, and that there is a long history of bullshit on all sides. To make progress we need to focus on highlighting the benefits of cooperating until the non-cooperators understand. Tit-for-tat has been shown to be a very good strategy in general. A first and very important step towards that direction would be the acknowledgement that not all religious states are inherently bad or that religion is the problem that we face. I think it's pretty obvious by now that we mainly face the problem of an unfair distribution of wealth and power. Look at the US and what is happening there right now. Or are you there suggesting a connection with religion as well?
>> Yes, it is very important and I do agree. Unfortunately, the rigid religious nature of these socities make it much harder to even communicate your thoughts. Just imagine trying to convince humanist and rationalist values with the help of verbal discussions to Nazi people.
Why do you limit this hypothetical to verbal discussion? We have the ability to demonstrate the consequences of actions in more convincing ways than verbal arguments can. I think a key ingredient to learning is by experiencing and doing something. Design and execution of simulations is a way better way to explore the consequence of ones own actions.
>> I think the modern western world with democratic systems is far superior from a humanistic view-point as compared to the barbaric Islamic nations. And with immegration and otherwise, if these people are coming to modern western world, it becomes our duty to tell them unequivocally "what is negotiable and what is not and that some aspects of their religious beliefs can be accommodated but some barbaric aspects cannot be tolerated in our society because in our society we do not allow religions to play any significant role at societal/interpersonal level, that religion can only be a personal matter to them".
Why should I believe you? You made up your mind before I came. I never had a chance to convince you of my ideas or demonstrate how I could be a productive member of society - even with religion.
Of course there need to be some rules but there are many things we should not restrict simply because we feel uncomfortable with some ideas. For example, in Germany there is a discussion about forbidding the nikab by law because it is a symbol of the oppression of the woman and offense against the western way of living. This is madness if you actually want people to change because it's an highly symbolic act of aggression and supremacism. The nikab is only a piece of clothing that some women wear because they feel they need it. It's true that some women might be forced to wear it but that problem is not going to be solved by forbidding the nikab. Wouldn't those women would then simply be staying at home - they are forced and oppressed after all? There are even some women who only started to wear the nikab after this discussion started simply to rebel against the symbolism. If we are so superior why do we feel the need to exert this kind of show? It's hypocracy at it's finest.
>> So, we must try to have a dialogue with Islamists and other religious people. But if the modern free societies in the western world wish to continue enjoying the freedom they have hard earned by fighting against some of the religions (the Christianity, Judaism), then they must make it clear that these values are NOT negotiable with some new religions (including Islam), just to accommodate their (barbaric) manners/scriptures in our societies.
As I hope to have made it evident by now that you will not be perceived to be wanting to start a dialog but be part of a wicked, hypocratic and unjust world that has materially favored a few over the many, a world where nobody can honestly say: I deserve to be where I am. You are not perceived to be open for change but a person from a long line of supremacists who have waged war against my country on an idealogical, economic and physical level. You are not seeing me as a person with insights and values to contribute maybe even capable of greatness but as one from millions of irrational believers that are threatening your very way of living and existence that is nothing but build on decades of subjugation and misery of others.
>> Yes, I understand that they may perceive such opinions as an attack against their reality/identity but I want you to note that it is a verbal and thought attack and not physical attack.
Yes, you personally may have not physically attacked anyone but realizing that individuals are not like a stereotype is difficult, isn't it?
>> So, if they cannot tolerate difference of opinions, then we must tell them unequivocally "that they have to learn and abide by these modern, humanistic, democratic values if they wish to live here, that they have to learn that we value the freedom to offend their (or anyone's) sentiments/feelings, that everyone here has the freedom to criticize, ridicule, their religion, their prophet(s), their ways."
For 'they' to learn you have to be willing to appreciate, understand and engage with him or her.
On that note... I really want to thank you for this great discussion, it is always interesting to see and engage with problems from different view points. I am looking forward to your reply :)