Two extremes, yes. I am a right leaning centrist and I more or less agree with how you have analyzed today's political spectrum. Since you are claiming to be a Messiah like figure to right these extremes of radical Islamists on one hand and anti-Muslim bigotry on the other, I can give you my support and wish you the very best in this matter. But alas, there have always been people claiming to be political Messiahs trying to fix the system but what happens? They make mistakes or get corrupted or take on a somewhat different stance after being in their position for a while.
You are sounding like a Ben Shapiro who harbors similar views like ours with respect to politics and has interests to take up America's top job post 2024. I would support him if he were the presidential candidate but would he maintain consistency after getting the position? This is the same question I have to ask you. Humans are weak and not infallible. There is strong evidence in history over millennia that indicates rulers were slipping up after getting power irrespective of their original intentions. The same is the case even today.
Now, one could argue democracy can fix this since power is not kept indefinitely nor passed down by inheritance like some monarchy or caliphate. But remember, ideologies last longer even after the people who invented or innovated them are gone. These ideologies continue to shape people's views and therefore, even the leanings of any democratic system by extension. So democracy has its flaws. But I suppose for we, as imperfect beings, that's the best we can come up with (So far).
Also, I am going through your videos on youtube (both urdu/hindi and english channels)..and I have to confess that you do sound like a religious bigot (an anti-theist, not an atheist). What you say there and what you say in your channels (especially the Urdu/Hindi one) clearly tells me that you are an idealogue of militant atheism despite how you are trying to portray yourself as a classical liberal standing for secular values. I do see some truth in you claiming to be a classical liberal to some degree. But when it comes to your views on religion, no I see the bigot at work in your videos. Classic Liberals are people like Dave Rubin, Dr Jordan Peterson, Dr Eric Weinstein, Joe Rogan etc who do not preach bigotry towards someone who believes in any god.
So that brings me to this question. What makes you say that after you have made it to the top you are going to propagate a different kind of authoritarianism (i.e. militant atheism)and anti-religion bigotry preached by your gods? (eg: Dawkins, Hitchens, the naturalist and materialist camps of the scientific community) (Some food for thought).
Also on another note - you like to look good when you are up against people from the sub-continent who lack attributes like critical thinking and analyzing different things. You can look like a genius in front of fools like Zakir Naik, Engineer Mirza or intellectually dishonest people like Nadir Ahmed. And who are your audience? Former sub-continental Muslims who have not really studied other world views but stopped at the point when they thought Islam is not what they thought it was. And also Hindu nationalists with anti Abrahamic-religion sentiments because of the propaganda preached by right-wing Hindu extremist groups and the current government. So it does not make you any different from the Islamic apologists from the sub-continent who preach to a similar audience who like to hear what they like to hear without questioning the absurdity, authenticity or the fallacies in their preacher's claims (eg: The classic 2 + 2 = 4 argument).
That could be the same assumption you made when you debated Nowruz thinking that you would be able to ridicule him. Unfortunately that did not work out very well for you. He had a stronger foundation to argue theism as compared to you when it came to argue in favor of atheism. He had a solid foundation of philosophy and was able to construct sound philosophical arguments. Something you would not expect from some normal sub-continental religious apologist. Harris, you on the other hand were constructing strawman and quoting hear-say (sunnee-sunnaahi hooi baat - a term you like using a lot in your Urdu videos).
But to be fair and objective, you did get the better of Nowruz when it came to his views on Islam. However, even there you were not adequately prepared to quote the Hadith or Surahs in context and take him down. Never ever go in a debate assuming that your opponent is just a sub-continental idiot who conjures arguments on hear say.
Tip: You need to have the evidence to support your arguments right in front of you and also objections to the arguments of your opponents from scholarly sources. In an actual intellectual debate you have to be prepared like a lawyer. Nothing less.
Furthermore, you have no experience or are rather scared to take on genuinely intellectual religious apologists, particularly Christian apologists on these matters. Maybe because some of them are scientists and philosophers at the same time and they scare you.
eg: William Lane Craig who even scares your God Dawkins to death that he fears him in open debate. Dr Craig embarrassed Sam Harris in a debate when the topic was about the Source of Objective Morality. And what did Sam Harris do? Write up an explanation of why that happened just like you did about writing a blog about "Absolute Truths" after Nowruz embarrassed you because your foundations on atheism were not strong compared to his foundations on theism (Note - I have taken his views on Islam out of the equation here - he has a bias over there). Watch Dr Craig's debates with Christopher Hitchens and learn from both sides. There is another guy called John Lennox who has embarrassed Hitchens more often than not. These are long 2-3 hour debates...so just to synthesize what they say and analyze what they say can take at least a week or two (for me, for you it will take longer because I look through Science as I work in the sciences and engineering disciplines, you on the other hand are looking at Science and quoting hearsay without analyzing the arguments made in depth).
Have you heard of Peter Hitchens? The brother of Chris Hitchens who was a former atheist and then converted to Christianity? Or CS Lewis? Read up their works...even when CS Lewis was an atheist he was not convinced about Darwinian views of evolution and consciousness which have been as mainstream by the naturalist and materialist schools of the scientific community (not science by itself). Try taking on the guy who runs InspiringPhilosophy channel on youtube (Michael Jones) or Frank Turek (Cross examined) or Ravi Zacharias?. I like you to see how you fare when you debate with any of these guys or they might not even entertain you (CS Lewis is long dead by the way).
I suggest you start studying the other the other side of the arguments and clearly start comparing and contrasting it with the world view you have (without your naturalistic and anti-theist lens).
As a computer scientist myself, I can clearly see that you are looking at Science, not looking through it and also believing hearsay of the scientific community and blindly accepting it as truth since it conforms to your bias. I was disappointed when Nowruz put you in a position where you were forced to agree that you do not know, that you are still finding out about things related to consciousness and morality. Tsk..tsk. You were taking leaps of faith greater than a theistic person has to take. And then you labelled yourself as "atheist agnostic", a new term which atheists use to deny their leap of faith in something they believe is true but without having the evidence to justify that leap of faith. That makes you no better than someone who believes in God or some form of religion. Except the leap of faith you are making is even greater and based on more conjecture and suppositions as compared to that of a theist! You have lot to learn kid.
