You guys were right, and I was wrong: refuting theists who won't budge really does make a difference
I've been active in the ex-Muslim circles as we post rebuttals to common Muslim arguments, and to be honest, like I posted here before (and you all refuted), I was beginning to think it was a waste of time. Why keep refuting theist arguments when the theists on the other side are not going to budge?
That is, until today when two Muslims not really involved in the debates (and another random theist) said that my posts had helped them see that atheism was in fact a very tenable and logical position, and that they were interested in me answering their questions further. These Muslims were already relatively liberal, and were disgusted by many aspects of mainstream Islam.
Still, it seems so time consuming, and living in the West, being "passionate" about refuting religion in the name of atheism makes one looked down upon as a fanatic, no different than a Christian or Muslim one. Which brings me to this picture:
Am I a fanatic for wanting Muslims to leave Islam, and to reject an ideology that is overwhelmingly violent and hateful? Am I an extremist for thinking the world will be just so much better without a single ontological position other than my own, just like Muslims think?
But then again, I read in history that many people, including even supposedly Abraham Lincoln, thought abolitionists were extreme fanatics. John Brown instantly comes to mind, whom Lincoln called crazy. Lincoln was afraid their rhetoric was going to tear the nation apart, and stated that he would rather not set any slaves free and keep the union in place.
But, it was the abolitionist position that was the morally superior one. And that is the one that won out in history. And that's what makes me thing that being viewed as a fanatic today may mean history tomorrow will smile down upon me. I don't really know yet, but that is the best point that comes to mind.