I’m not getting the impression she is now pro-Jesus. She always seemed more anti-Islam than atheist. Her christianity seems like a continuation of that.
What you're suggesting sounds, to me, as if she heard Pordan Jeterson's ridiculous nonsense and thought to herself "yeah that guy is right". Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if that were the case. "Um, liek, I'm _culturally_ christian? Because, um, liek, I clean my room, and also something about, liek, lobsters or whatever?"
This is my impression as well. I've run into a handful of ex-muslim women who are functionally just anti-muslim bigots. Taking valid criticisms of islam and muslim majority countries and turning them into essentialist ideas about all muslims. Which like, the overreaction is understandable coming from a woman who not only experienced islam firsthand but also experienced leaving islam. But it's still an overreaction which has lead to unjustifiable beliefs. So, pretty cringe.
100% agree. It really just reeks of "I'm so anti-Muslim" I'm going to whatever I view as the winning team which in itself damages your credibility (even though the reaction is understandable). I'm not Muslim but I've met enough Muslims and ex-Muslims to feel some level of embarrassment seeing how she is acting.
Very true. I used to be a “political Christian” in the sense that I identified as a Christian because I thought it was good for society but it was actually becoming a Christian and studying Christianity that caused me to abandon that view. I still believe Christianity is good but that’s not why I’m a Christian. The view that we should believe Christianity is true because it helps society is fundamentally based on anti-Christian thinking. Christianity should be embraced because it is true and for no other reason.
Christianity should be undermined by its hypocrisy As should atheism You insightfully speak of manmade Christianity, it’s ideology, dogma, group ego, and social tyranny But you are petty and bitter Which is why you speak of THIS and not Christ, or his message, which shall never be undermined 🙌🏼
@maximgruner I think it would be understandable to be a doubtful Christian, like you are unsure, but don't want to abandon your religion. But converting so you can use the religion as a political foundation or worse a tool, that's inexcusable and gross. Maybe this is what the lying to the holy spirit sin is referring to.
It’s weird that we have this dichotomy between Christianity and atheism. Just once I would like to hear someone say “I’m no longer an atheist; I believe in the Hellenistic pantheon of gods and goddesses who sometimes interact with humanity.”
@ChristopherSadlowski There are MANY more forms of paganism then Wicca. And some are far from "harmless", particularly those that have hijacked Thor and Odin for the far right.
There are emergent pagan sects in Scandinavia as well. So your idea is not far from the truth. Also, many are making the case that modern leftist religiosity is a sort of polytheistic worship of various demigods given its removal from the scientific and rational.
@@stevenvaleriojr1177 I never comment on YT because it's almost always asking for trouble (usually ends up being a theistic debate, which I'm not interested in having), but I have to say that's not always the case. Speaking solely for myself, I always identified as atheist (as well as right-leaning, believe it or not), but have recently embraced Norse Paganism and also am way more left-leaning now. I do worship and give offerings to Odin, specifically, but I do wear a Mjolnir, as well. As I said, I have no interest in any sort of debate, I'm just putting it out there that some of us (I'd hazard to say *most*) are not the way ppl tend to think. Every other Pagan I've met who is serious about it really are harmless. We just want to be left alone to our beliefs. That's not to say there aren't any around as you described, I just wouldn't consider them the majority. Also, to @GeneticallyModifiedSkeptic: Love the shirt as well as your content, keep it up! 😊
It's very telling that her "reasons for becoming a Christian" didn't include anything about believing that Christianity was actually true, but rather just seeing it as a utility tool for accomplishing political goals. What surprised me is how readily every Christian seems to be to just accept and embrace it. I thought a lot more of them would be calling her out for the fact that she all but admits that she doesn't actually believe it's true, but instead the majority of the Christians commenting on it seem to be embracing her hypocritical adopting of the label.
It’s almost like these type of people only care about superficial labels/identities so they can set you apart from the threatening “others”. Once you claim you’re on their side, even without giving any justifications as to why, you’re good and they’ll more readily accept what you have to say. Works like a charm every time
The most dangerous kind of misinformation is misinformation that a person likes. In this scenario, the headline said a thing they like. After that it was effectively a speedrun for the share button.
Essentially she has come full circle from being the person that religion is intended to control, to being the person who wants to use religion to control others. Lol.
It's remarkable how readily she is able to go all in with her conservative allies and "convert" when she knows that the core reasons why theocratic Islam encroaches on rights to freedom and dignity are the same as what drove Christianity to do the same historically (& even now with Christian nationalist movements): the dogmatic call to obey and control others.
@@dennisduncan7561 if I take Drew's description of what she said, it sounds like she just wants to use religion to counter religion. It's meant to control people and is an easy way to reinforce and opposition group to whatever she feels is a threat.
I really liked this video. Short, digestible, and raised some really good points about how easily people on either side can claim a victory without even thinking about why they're calling it a win. My brain added one wrinkle today
I'm neurodivergent and even though religion is my special interest, I struggle a lot to collect the energy I need to watch a 30min video. This short videa helped me reconect with my interests after depression made it almost impossible to do so
Maybe the real horseman was the friends we made along the way! ❤ you drew! Keep up the amazing work. I've been binging you and Taylor's content. Your compassion and empathy is palpable.
Like Drew said, it's not about what you label yourself as, it's what you do that shows your values. And based off of that, we can evaluate your trustworthyness. Ayaan has always (to my knowledge) been an apologist for center-right political values so I have not seen her as a particularly empathic person.
Ayaan Hirsi Ali: It's condescending for Western scholars to say that the 9/11 terrorists weren't motivated by religion, but by political, historical, economic, and social grievances. Also Ayaan Hirsi Ali: I'm gonna call myself Christian, not because of my theological convictions, but because of my political, historical, economic, and social grievances.
Ayaan is an opportunist, her religion is herself and what benefits her. From lying on her asylum application, to entering Dutch politics as a left-winger, shifting to the right when that made her more popular, to the extreme right when that gave her more clout. As right-wing politics in the USA is entwined with conservative Christianity, her becoming a Christian is only a 'logical' next step. (I'm a Dutch ex-muslim, same age as Ayaan. I followed her career from the beginning.)
This is a perfect description of her. She is essentially a female version of Trump. She doesn't believe in any of the religious nonsense but will claim to be what she is not in order to further her popularity among the newly embraced crowd. This is the worst type of character in a human.
Very true. She’s been opportunistic for as long as we’ve seen, which is a lot longer than the English speaking world has seen her. She’s an intellectual lightweight at best.
@@im-not-alone5587 no, we don't care if she's an atheist, and she's almost certainly not a christian. she's just an opportunistic reactionary grifter with no actual beliefs.
@im-not-alone5587 I've read that comment a few times and nowhere does the OP make that accusation. Not sure where you're getting that interpretation from unless you're trying to make a straw man.
Everytime I hear any right leaning pundit using "wokeism" as a blanket thing to slander something that doesn't fit their worldview I feel like an exasperated Inigo Montoya telling a baffled Vezzini that he keeps using a word that doesn't mean what he thinks it means lol
I feel like Deputy Samuel Gerard of the U.S. Marshalls, who once told his underlings he didn't like them using words that have no meaning around him. "Woke" is so broad and vague at this point that it is pretty much meaningless. Ditto for "masterpiece".
The thing is, Vezzini *_couldn't_* conceive of the events he labeled "inconceivable"; he wasn't using the word wrong, it absolutely means what he thought it meant, but in doing so he just highlighted his own lack of imagination.
It seems to be a trend among right leaning ight wing atheist that make their money from being right wing, to claim that they are now Christians. I am not sure if she has genuinely converted, or if being Christian just fits her grift more.
@@taylorlibby7642 Because what are left wingers grifting on??? Human fights????? Right wingers have a reason to use Christianity to their advantage if they hate certain people, like gay and trans people, just because it fits their narrative, not because it's actually helpfu or anything. Maybe some left wingers, who I haven't seen often, do this but it is *SO COMMON* among right wingers I see it all the time. I mean, even the "left wingers" I *HAVE* seen who do that eventually suddenly become right wing extremists. I mean, look at the person who tried to copyright the bi flag!!! They suddenly hard right turned into being anti-lgbtq+ *JUST* because they didn't get to copyright *A FLAG MADE BY SOMEONE ELSE!!!!!* They do it because they want recognition and profit for their weird or hateful views, not because they have genuine intentions. "Let me copyright someone else's work so I make money!" "Let me, a trans person, hate other trans people so right wingers can call me slurs but toss me some peanuts!!!" "Let me call drag queens gr00mers as hundreds of kids get m0lested at my church, but we don't do anything because we believe in "forgivness" or some shit!!!!!" One is *CLEARLY* not like the other when it comes to intentions.
@@taylorlibby7642 A lot right-wing talking points can be traced back to Lee Atwater and the "new Southern strategy." You can't say the n-word, so you say forced busing and states' rights kind of thing. They're saying the same shit now, just using different terms. Some of them know it, some of them don't care, some are ignorant. They're pushing states' rights when they mean restricting freedoms, and they try to make political arguments but push them and they either can't give a good reason or fall back on religion. So yes, they're lying or at least lying via omission to the people consuming the content and profiting off it. They're grifters. In my opinion.
I have followed "atheist-to-religion" stories and if you listen carefully, they started out religious and atheism looks more like an interlude or experiment. Very few people with no family background in Christianity suddenly wake up and just know that Jesus is the ONE.
Except the ones who were raised in non- religios and atheistic household. Just accept that a person can have a "ah-ha!" ☝️ moment in believing in God just like the host of this video has done in NOT believing in God; both can be true,
It's a presumption that very few people with no Christian background become Christian later. I know many cases where that's true. Also, that doesn't disprove Christianity.
I know people raised in atheist families and lol, they're never becoming religious. There's a reason all religions make sure to indoctrinate children when they're young. If they are allowed to grow and mature first it's extremely unlikely they'll fall for the fantasies.
I love that all of these atheists "don't care" about this conversion so much, we have a ten minute video explaining how much they don't care (with a total time investment of probably a few hours to write, film, edit, etc.) and then 3k comments about how much they really don't care guys. This is why it's gotten harder to take GMS seriously lately. Obviously, you care to some extent. You made a video. Just own that.
We've all been saying, all of us, for _years_ now, 'It's a shame us atheists are so moral because there'd be so much money in being a 'former atheist' and working for Fox or something.' WELP. It was only a matter of time before someone with dubious ethics would make the predictable jump.
She's worked with PragerU for years. She made the jump quite a while ago, and is only just now declaring it for political purposes. Considering the timing, likely as a shield against potential Islamophobic comments against the Palestinian people, seeing as she's already gone on record to praise Netanyahu.
@@AndaraBledin As I said, I really didn't know much about this person, outside of the two (so far) videos about her "conversion" that have come out the past few days. Her appearance in a PragerU video didn't seem like a new thing, from the single clip in the video. Basically, she's always been an opportunist. They dodged a bullet when they chose Daniel Dennett over this sad embarrassment to humanity for the "Four Horsemen". I'd put even odds on her doing the _salat_ five times a day still despite being an "ex" muslim. You can't get more false than this kind of trash-for-pay.
I've never heard of her until now ... but I have a question: *Does she actually believe that some dude killed by the Romans for sedition about 2,000 years ago was actually resurrected by a god?* Because of she doesn't actually believe that, then she's as "Christian" as I am. And I'm an atheist.
I think that she (and Lil' Jordy Petes, to name another) are cleaving to what you might call "civilizational christianity" and not doctrinal or biblical literalist christianity. You know how "the west" used to also be called "christendom" by westerners and non-westerners, despite still having plenty of secular foundations and secular values? It's kinda like that. It's muddy but I can see where they're coming from. Truth is, "atheism" isn't really a movement or worldview any more than "non-stamp collecting" is a hobby. People look for some sort of constitution and often end up leaning on old ways that come with some baggage of supernaturalism/spiritism; even if those people are also effectively naturalists.
... resurrected by a god, but also *was* that same god, sacrificing himself to appease himself, so that his own creations could by worshipping his mutilated self avoid the eternal hellfire that he would otherwise inflict on them, because they shared the guilt of an ancestor who ate the wrong piece of fruit ... 🤦♂️
@@ManDuderGuy This isn't a biblical literalist thing. The entire point of christianity is accepting jesus christ as the incarnate diety who died for your sins and accepting him as your savior. There are tons of doctrinal differences, sure, but if you don't believe in that basic idea, then you aren't a christian.
I remember her saying that ‘we need to give Muslims the option to switch to Christianity to fight against Islamism’ - no surprise. She’s always been a mixed bag for me.
A person who leaves islam for political purposes will accept another religion for political purposes too. The double standard of atheists here is that when it comes to her leaving islam, they associate politics with religion but when it comes to her accepting christianity they separate politics from religion. Such hypocritical atheists!😏
She definitely did it for political and financial reasons. Edit: after seeing her interview, she might actually believe it. She makes it sound like she didn’t become a Christian, but she simply realized she was already a Christian because of her values. Also because she believes Christianity is the only way to be Islam.
A person who leaves islam for political purposes will accept another religion for political purposes too. The double standard of atheists here is that when it comes to her leaving islam, they associate politics with religion but when it comes to her accepting christianity they separate politics from religion. Such hypocritical atheists!😏
"She identifies as a Christian now." My response to this feels so petty. It's just: Okay. Have fun. If only the people she associates with could have the same response to people like me, but that would mean finding another outgroup to blame all their problems on.
Another interesting point is how American Christians are so quick to treat select individuals’ conversions to Christianity as an obvious death nell for atheism, but just as quickly dismiss the thousands of deconversions *from* Christianity as irrelevant.
Because there are an equal number of conversions to Christianity. The current Christian population is 2.3 billion projected to reach 3.3 billion by 2070. If Christian deconversions were relevant this would not be the case.
In this case, it will be justified, though, as her reasons for converting to christianity notably don't include anything about believing in god or accepting christ as her savior, instead it's about politics and attacking muslims.
Many political christians go in a line from protestant to catholic because they think it's more western and traditional but since the current pope is ""woke"" by yheir standards they're recently switching to ortodoxy.
A well-known Evangelical recently said in an interview that conservative Christianity has become just as secularized as the larger culture and they haven't even noticed it happening.
I never thought of Ayaan Hirsi Ali as a critic of all religions or as an "atheist" necessarily. I thought of her as a critic of Islam only so I'm not surprised by this and always felt that the right wing would be a good home for her.
I mean, it's not as if Islam occupies the left wing. I don't see how this move demonstrates that her allegiance has shifted from the left to the right.
My take on this, is that it is a political stunt to obtain more political clout, especially in regards to the right-wing Christian demographic, since many of their views on issues such as Islam, refugees and "wokeism" align with that of Ali. Like Drew said in the video, she is Christan in the more political sense rather than as a genuine expression of personal beliefs that pertain to spirituality or the supernatural. In other words, cynical right-wing grifting.
And the funny thing is that the people she's pandering to are the ones that consider such spirituality and beliefs to be called a Christian. It's kinda like the Jordan Peterson thing, where he has to tiptoe around the issue of whether or not he actually believes in a god as depicted by classical theism (nothing indicates he does), so that his fans can project onto him their own beliefs.
More credibility to the idea that coalescing around a lack of belief doesn’t make a lot of sense. I don’t think I ever would have considered her and myself as part of the same movement.
@@christophercheck1590She came from a fundamentalist Islamic background, and was severely vaginally mutilated. Of course she's going to save most of her ammo on Islam, just like atheists harmed by Xtianity are gonna do the same with that religion. This really shouldn't surprise anyone.
@ladyaj7784 What is a bad reason to be an atheist? Do you meant morally bad, or bad as in a flawed argument for atheism? Either way, there isn't really a bad reason to be an atheist. If you don't believe in any religion you are an atheist, the reason for your lack of belief doesn't really matter.
It’s more common for a religious person to become an atheist, this is the normal progression, than for an athiest to become religious. It’s also more common for a left-winger to slowly become more right wing as they age, this is the standard progression, but is less common for a right-winger to become left wing. As such these are much bigger shockers.
You are 100% incorrect. Woke ideology has nothing to do with liberalism or freedom of speech. In fact many woke tenants go against liberal values and free expression as has been evidenced repeatedly the last 8 years.
As a previous atheist, then later an evangelical Christian for decades, my skeptical mindset finally got the best of me and steered me back to atheism once again. I doubt that she will find much room for healthy, wholesome skepticism in her new "faith".
That's an interesting path. I've known a few Christians who became atheists in their 30s. It was always an intellectual thing. I've also known quite a few people who have converted to Christianity as adults. Those people tended to be looking for a life change. Christianity is very misunderstood, in my opinion. Many people think being a religious Christian is adhering to a set of negative rules (Don't do this. Don't do that). That's not the message, though. The point of the Gospel is that God isn't judging people on the impossible to follow rules, he's making a way for flawed people to find meaning, purpose, and forgiveness despite their flaws. That's why atheism is for the perfect moral people and Christianity is for the rest of us.
There is something of a problem with reading too much about someone's political beliefs when they say they're an atheist. Ayn Rand was an atheist, and she was very much NOT progressive or left leaning in any way.
She was an atheist in a strange way it’s hard to imagine a conservative being today. She explicitly said she found Christ a pathetic figure symbolizing weakness and submissiveness, and that was antithetical to her whole “the strong and mighty deserve to run everything” philosophy.
Religious = Political Conservative is an equation that can be made in the USA of today but it’s not something that can be automatically generalised to other times and places.
@@bibaolaitan5189 There is in the sense of being conservative means being in a political coalition with a lot of very religious Christians whose states political agenda claims to be motivated by Christianity.
@@InciniumVGCAre you even aware that "cultural Marxism" is just a term for "cultural Bolshevism," used by WW2 German propaganda to smear Jews? Do you even know what "woke" originally meant while we're at it?
Clown ass take. Nothing good about "wokism" when all they do is insist people change thoughts and language under the threat of being doxxed and having your career destroyed for difference of opinion. Not to mention the narrative they push on the issues they obsess over are as fictitious as what the christians push about their magic man in the sky. Their whole worldview is predicated upon victimhood. In what world can any sane person not see this as a negative thing? Definitely not the world you're living in pal.
I'm an ex muslim and now an atheist, and I'm just like you. I prefer to deal with a Muslim who shares the same values as me than deal with an atheist who is against the rights of minorities. The recent events that happens in Gaza have open my eyes to the fact that not everyone who leaves religion necessary becomes a humanist ( after seeing a lot of comments from ex Muslims who support Israeli terrorism against innocent people, I understood that) I love Ayaan's criticism of Islam and her fighting against FGM, specially since it happened to me and I'm in a society that completely support it so i was happy to have a woman representing me but i disagree with her political views
I remember her for her critiscism of Islam as being valuable, but beyond that also as an obnoxious quarrelsome person, who wasn't very much missed in the Netherlands when she left for the States.
I think the same can be said about Sam Harris' take on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. What started as a valid and necessary criticism of Islam has devolved into plain old islamophobia. If you gave these two, or any moral philosopher the full context of the conflict but without mentioning what religion or what ethnicity any of the people involved belong to, you'd struggle to find anyone who would consider the Israeli response as the morally sound thing to do. What Israel is doing is disgusting and seeing people I used to held to a higher moral standard fail to condemn it as such is very dissapointing. I'm an atheist and I've been marching in protests sorrounded by muslims, jews and christians alike. This is not a religious conflict at all, yet the other side of the aisle seem to love mislabeling it as such.
I do relate to what you say as an ex muslim and now atheist myself. People often assume that because I left Islam then it would be evident for m to hate anything Islam related; this is NOT true, and I find that it deems my decision to leave Islam as emotional, again NOT true, I only left Islam because the whole concept of monotheistic religions doesn't seem rational to me, and this reasoning would prevent me from joining any other religion. Emotional fueled decision to leave Islam will lead you to support the genocide of Palestinians.
I offer my condolences for your vagina. That poor organ, brutally mutilated. It is one of the worst things humans do to each other based on religion. I hope you are doing good now.
Ayan is a smart woman, she was a politician before and she sees Christianity as a political tool. And it's hard to argue with irrational people purely based on facts as they don't care about facts, that's why they reach fanatical levels of religiosity.
Maybe she has political ambitions (since most in US congress are christian). If that is not the case than it is a rejection of atheism...being to soft to counter islam which is her main theme. btw looking at the way atheists respond to Ali switching to christianity that is rather irrational. Take a look at yourself first before you judge others dude.
They're simply "better" people: more intelligent, more enlightened. If they can't touch it, taste it, handle it, it does not exist.@@aclaylambisabirdman6324
I loved her first book. I was glued to every page and could not put it down until I was done. Over the years, she faded into the back of our minds. This was most likely the same across the globe. This was a problem for her but mostly, her wallet. Stating that she is now a Christian, will help her wallet. It reminds me of a person who once created a anti-rightwing website based on outrageously false claims of the right. When liberals, progressives and the entire left didn't fall for his BS, he switched to creating a anti-leftwing platform creating fake stories and outrageous claims. His income increased from nearly nothing to $30,000.00 a month. Because he now knows the right will fall for anything. She knows this too.
I remember buying End of Faith by Sam Harris, in the began enjoying the book, but when he supported torture of prisoners in Guantanamo Bay, all I could do was just cringe. I see myself more aligned with a religious person who agrees with Amnesty International than an atheist who doesn’t.
Harris puts on a facade of reasonableness which often sails disingenuously into some pretty wild defenses for indefensible/ inhumane actions. His arguments are ultimately unsound and not very well put together. I sort of found this in a lot of the 2010s “new atheists” who kinda leaned into right wing western exceptionalism, and even casually dip into actual racism and Ayaan fit that bill pre “conversion” as well. Being on Prager U should be a red flag for anyone, Christian or No. Anyone who subscribes to basic reason wouldn’t shill for those people. The “anti-woke” stuff is ridiculous too. And is used flexibly to describe any social change these people don’t like at the time. I say all this as someone who went to see Dawkins in person and had multiple books by the horsemen. They always had a somewhat twisted world view that I don’t appreciate and it doesn’t surprise me that one of their peers is saying and doing all of what she is.
Also, secularism is usually scary and full of unkonwns to people who were raised with religion deeply ingrained into them. People have gone years, perhaps even decades in secular life before realizing that they were still holding onto perceptions they came to only for religious reasons (or perceptions they came to because of personal bias which were then reinforced only by religion or traditional culture tied to religion). It is often difficult to transition from assurance of an eternal reward to seeking one's own meaning, purpose and motivation in life. For this last problem, I'd like to share my perspective in case it can help anyone, if you've ever found someone other than yourself in this world who you truly love then I'm confident you can attest to the following: If you love the joy and wellbeing of someone other than yourself, you are experiencing paradise. That is the best, most fulfilling feeling a person can experience and if there is any afterlife at all then you can also experience paradise in that afterlife the same way it is experienced in this life. There is no gatekeeper, mortal or eternal, who can keep you from paradise. This does not mean you will not suffer, suffering is unavoidable, but you can experience paradise even while suffering, I've seen it and I've experienced it. I've said all this before but it just occurred to me to say: Just think how terrible god would have to be for any contradiction of this to be true.
It’s been four years since I deconverted from the hardline and fundamentalist interpretation of Catholicism I followed for several years and that deconversion was nothing short of traumatic (but also liberating) for me, before although I was miserable in many ways at least I had a good idea of what my life was supposed to be for and what I had to do but when that faith with prepackaged answers finally fell apart I was so depressed that I nearly tried to end it all because it felt like I had nothing left to live for. So you’re right, removing the religious framework of living can be a very scary experience for many and in some ways I feel like leaving Christianity as a whole cost me nearly everything I had (and I’m still recovering from the time I was really aimless in life) but I felt I had no choice but to keep going for the sake of my integrity and I don’t regret it, however those experiences are also why I feel sorry for many of the people I left behind (alongside many people still in in other fundamentalist movements) because if they end up leaving as well they may end up losing more than I did but this woman in particular comes across as a grifter like so many others on the right so I don’t extend that sympathy to her. Therapy has really helped so far and so many other apostates may need it and I started taking meds because my depression was getting out of hand more recently and I feel like I’ve been given a second chance at life now, I’ve come to realize that it’s the small things that matter the most (in contrast to these grand cosmic narratives so many of us were raised with) so many of the things you mentioned resonate with me.
Your definition of paradise sounds more like a joyful or meaningful experience, or perhaps fulfillment of an obligation or duty, and I attest that you are worshiping at the altar of 'the other" if that is where you derive transcendent meaningful experience. A good cure for solipsism and selfishness for sure, but pales in comparison to religious notions of paradise. I would add that secularism is scary for me and I wasn't raised with religion deeply ingrained within me at all. Nietzsche's thoughts on the Death of God are apropos. The problem of evil is not solved by worshiping the other and if that is taken to extremes it can damage the self (and even the other you are worshiping.) I would recommend a good book, "The Righteous Mind" by Jonathan Haidt.
@@zarbins First of all, I don't worship anything or anyone and I can't help getting the impression that religious thinking was ingrained in you if you truly insist that's what my perspective is, even if it was not your family but the world we live in that ingrained that perspective in you. Secondly, why bring up the problem of evil? I didn't bring up any reference to the problem of evil in my initial comment. From a non-religious perspective, the problem of evil is just that I don't like evil but it still exists. The reason the problem of evil is brought up from a secular perspective when arguing against religion is that a god who allows evil is either not all good or not all powerful. I realize that not everyone can realistically find someone else who's joy they genuinely love and that doesn't mean they can't have the ultimate joy and fulfillment of life, it is equally valid to love your own joy and this should be prioritized alongside loving the joy of others one loves. In fact, loving the joy of others is ultimately for the purpose of providing joy to one's self, there is no motivation that isn't self centered - if something motivates a person then the center of that motivation has to be a benefit to one's self but if one finds another person who's joy they love (which is the only definition I can assign to actually loving someone) their joy will inevitably cause joy in the one who loves them and, regardless of how you explain it (perhaps by the fact that it is rarer than love for one's self) the joy that comes from this is special and, to me, more meaningful than just loving myself and no one else. It's not a matter of duty, I don't hold myself to a requirement to love others, I just respond to my love for others by enjoying their joy. Speaking from my own personal experience, as I did in my initial comment, there is no joy a person can experience which exceeds the joy of loving someone else's joy even if loving one's own joy selfishly is equal to it. I'd also like to make another statement for the sake of clarity: I don't consider selfishness and self centeredness to be the same thing, nor is selfishness always evil. Every motivation is self centered or it wouldn't be a motivation. Even if I love someone so that my simple awareness of their joy makes me happy without any need to be owed anything, or credited with their joy (by others or myself) to want to make them happy, my motivation to make them happy is centered around MY joy. There's no escaping that, but you can see how this motivation differs from making the entire motivation only involve myself. If I do kind things for others only to be owed something or to be praised, that certainly provides me a source of joy but it's not as meaningful as genuinely loving someone else's joy and such motivation could just as easily motivate me to use others as a scapegoat or take credit for the work of others. Now, I'd like to emphasize also that selfishness is not always harmful. Just as the easiest example (but certainly not the only example): If someone lives alone in the wilderness, far from anyone else so there is no perceptible affect their actions could have on others, everything they do (other than kindness they show to other life forms of course) is just for there self without consideration of others. These selfish motives are not wrong, they're not intended harm at all. One can certainly argue that morality is subjective but I would argue that morality can be objectively defined and what is subjective is whether it is good to be moral. Granted there is a grey area as to where to draw a certain line in my definition of morality, amorality and immorality but the concepts seem objective to me. If you ask me, morality is the motivation to cause good in the life of anyone (human or not), immorality is prioritization of one's own relatively trivial benefit over any aversion to causing relatively severe harm to anyone else (this is where the grey area comes in - what is trivial and what is severe is somewhat ambiguous) and amorality is following instincts without a concept of harming others. Lastly, I'd like to ask you what paradise could possibly be to you if not perfectly explained as the most joyful and most meaningful experience one could have. How do you define paradise in the context of a religious notion?
@@Where_is_Waldo Your definition of paradise is, "If you love the joy and wellbeing of someone other than yourself," perhaps I should have said it 'sounds' like you worship at the altar of the other. You claim to worship no one but are dependent on the joy and well-being of another to grant you an experience of love, and thus welcome you through the gates of paradise as if they were a Beatrice from Dante's divine comedy. I mentioned the problem of evil somewhat tongue and cheek in reference to, "just think how terrible god would have to be for any contradiction of this to be true." How could an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient God allow for another 'terrible' definition of paradise to exist... I'm being a bit playful here, but would like to reconcile this point with you because if I had to define what God is it would be something like "Love" or the capacity to love, or the transcendent experience of love, so perhaps we are not too far apart from each other and you are merely giving a specific example of love when found/experienced through the joy and wellbeing of another. Noted your points for clarity. Your definition of morality seems somewhat Utilitarian? A calculus between net benefit of goodness to another vs. possible selfish motivation? How I define paradise in religious terms is irrelevant but you likely known the standard definitions, "In Christianity, paradise is pictured as a place of rest and refreshment in which the righteous dead enjoy the glorious presence of God. In its view of the heavenly afterlife, Islam views paradise as a pleasure garden in which the blessed experience the greatest sensual and spiritual happiness. etc.." I'm not worth such a lengthy reply but appreciate the engagement. Have a good week my friend, and I hope you find Waldo.
@@zarbins I am not "dependent on the joy and well-being of another to grant (me) an experience of love". My love does not depend on another's joy or wellbeing, my love for another person means that I love their joy and wellbeing or, to put it another way, I hate the displeasure and detriment of those I love. What I said is that rejoicing in the joy and wellbeing of those I love IS paradise - it is what defines the greatest experience. If their is an eternal paradise after death, the ultimate joy and the ultimate fulfillment is what would make it paradise. There is no gatekeeper, in this life or any other, that can take away paradise so long as your mind exists and someone you love is happy. When I said "Just think how terrible god would have to be for any contradiction of this to be true." I was referring to a contradiction of the notion that paradise is defined by the experience of an ultimate joy and ultimate fulfillment that is not dependent on following any rule or rules that someone made for us to follow even if the only rule is to believe in and revere a god and/or a contradiction of the notion that paradise can be experienced in this, the only life we know we have and/or a contradiction of the notion that everyone who truly loves someone can attain the greatest joy and fulfillment through their love. My definition of morality is a matter of motivation. Your motivation is what defines who you are in any given scenario. You can not, in any sense, decide with absolute certainty what the net helpful or harmful results of your efforts will be but, as much as you can decide anything, you can decide what you want to do. It can be hard to judge what others want to do so I try to hesitate to judge others but people often make their intentions reasonably clear. Even so, I try to always second guess myself on any judgements I make about others since I know I can never be absolutely certain. For me, judging my perception of the morality of others is mostly a matter of avoiding people who will try to cause harm and judging my own morality is a matter of managing my instincts to best suit the central motivations that define who I am.
This sort of flipflopping of ideologies and labels happens constantly and with people on every side of any polarizing position. I don't ever see it as significant, as arguments and reason stand on their own, not just because someone I enjoy watching is espousing these things. It's a shame to give more fodder to the extremists, but at the end of the day there was no shortage of that anyway.
Would you really characterize a religious conversion as “flipflopping of ideologies and labels”? Makes it sound insignificant. Someone changing their mind between biden or trump, between hobbes or locke, between lenin or mao, none of those decisions implicates the fate of your immortal soul.
Secularism has been extremely satisfying for me despite not having superficial answers to existential questions that rob me of a sense of self and identity. I’m sorry she hasn’t felt that and therefore adopts Iron Age barbarism in its place.
Yeah lets adopt modernity and 21st century barbarism instead and lets see how long that'll last ah? Btw what is barbaric about loving ones enemy and caring for the poor, and self-sacrifice tho 💀?
@@Stolen_entertainment, try reading the rest of the Bible, Quran, etc. You'll find plenty of barbarism there. The core ideas of Jesus are fine (though far from ground breaking), but that's not what most Christians are applying on their day to day.
The Prager U appearance is a dead giveaway. Let's face it folks, US Christianity is evolving into less of "Whatever Church of Catholicism/Protestant/Evangelical/LDS, etc." and more into "The Church of Fox News/The Wire/Newsmax/Prager U".
Ayaan Hirsi Ali: _"Tolerance of intolerance is cowardice."_ Also Ayaan: _"We can't fight woke ideology if we can't defend the civilisation that it is determined to destroy."_ (2:30)
@@zarbins It does land, when you consider that _"woke ideology"_ is just a narrative of the right-wing to propagate their own intolerance & wilful ignorance.
@@Pushing_Pixels I'm not sure I follow. Many people are intolerant from across the political spectrum so perhaps there does need to be some capacity for tolerating intolerance but I don't think that is what you're getting at.
What I found the funniest is the bit where she says that "she still learns a lot about christianity every sunday at her church" XD what better way is there to admit that she has no clue what the religion is actually about
I remember Penn Jillette doing a skit about being converted to a believer, but then ends up saying something like how much money and fame he could've had if that were true. 😂 I think it was either in an episode of "B*ullshit!" or "Big Think".
Ali's transition from Islam to atheism, and ultimately to Christianity, was influenced by a few factors. She initially rejected Islam in response to the extremism exemplified by the 9/11 attacks, finding solace in atheism after being influenced by Bertrand Russell's critiques of religion. Her experience with the Muslim Brotherhood, which espoused a strict form of Islam, contributed to her disillusionment. However, she later found atheism inadequate in providing spiritual solace and a sense of life's purpose, leading her to embrace Christianity. She sees Christianity as offering a unifying narrative essential for upholding the values and traditions of Western civilization, contrasting it with the limitations of secular approaches in addressing global and existential challenges. She says and I quote "we can’t fight off these formidable forces unless we can answer the question: what is it that unites us? The response that “God is dead!” seems insufficient." She proves the Bertrand was right. her conversion was due to fear. She then said "I ultimately found life without any spiritual solace unendurable - indeed very nearly self-destructive. Atheism failed to answer a simple question: what is the meaning and purpose of life?" That means she believed atheism entailed nihilism which is false. She assumes meaning and purpose must be top down, instead of bottom up. So, it's really the moral case for God that motivated her transition. She says "We can’t withstand China, Russia and Iran if we can’t explain to our populations why it matters that we do. We can’t fight woke ideology if we can’t defend the civilization that it is determined to destroy. And we can’t counter Islamism with purely secular tools." She has even proclaimed that Holland's Argument in "Dominion" is somehow convincing or a reason to hold on to Christianity. She is just plainly wrong on this one and she seems to believe that Atheism is more than just a proposition on the existence of God. It's sad to see another person lost to delusion and she is going to church on Sundays to further fall into the trap of sophistry.
From a consistently materialist point of view, secular humanism is no more "correct" than any religion. There is no such thing as "good" and "evil" or "human rights" in nature. Believing in these things is no more logical than believing in angels. It's funny that many people who call themselves freethinkers and rationalists think otherwise. Also, the question about the meaning of life is important. The advantages and benefits that religion provides by providing a strong, collective, external purpose for existence are visible even from a purely Darwinian perspective: highly secularized societies are becoming increasingly atomized, sinking into empty hedonism and, as a consequence, crumbling demographically, religious societies are not.
@@dariuszgaat5771 These are non-sequiturs. Humanism doesn't claim it is correct, it is simply a way to live with each other. I am a moral anti-realist so it's not simply that good and evil or human rights don't exist in nature, they simply are not objective existing things. They are all events within society. We define what is good and evil and we decide what rights we impose on others. The question of the meaning of life is not inherently important simply because it is important to some or most. I see no advantage to religion, we need to understand that although we are atomized because we are individuals, we can still act in ways that benefit both society and ourselves. So your appeal to consequences is based on a false slippery slope.
@@CMVMic "Humanism doesn't claim it is correct, it is simply a way to live with each other." Of course claim. Secular humanists/left liberals, and in the past Marxists, behaved and still behave as if their worldview and moral system was the only appropriate, universal and "default" one for man. This is an obvious lie. These worldviews were not somehow rooted in human nature. They were created at a specific historical moment on the basis of Christian philosophy; it is basically a "Christianity without God". Human rights play the role of God. However, if one takes the trouble to carefully study the history of human ideas over the centuries, one will quickly realize that the basic moral values of almost all human societies have differed significantly from what humanists propagate. And that there is no "universal" ethical system. The fact that the idea of human rights has spread so widely around the world is solely due to the economic and military power of Europe and its expansion to other continents, ironically so vehemently condemned today by secular humanists as "colonialism". However, in my opinion, from a materialist point of view, there is no good reason for humanists to usurp the role of moral oracles, because their ideas are not, as they admit, written somewhere in nature, but are simply ideas - products of minds long dead philosophers from Europe. "The question of the meaning of life is not inherently important simply because it is important to some or most. I see no advantage to religion" Well, that's just your own subjective opinion. Yuval Hoah Harari believes that one of the reasons for the evolutionary success of Homo sapiens was the ability to create "imagined realities" in their minds, and religions are among the strongest and most convincing. They enable cooperation between millions of unrelated and unknown people and give them a common purpose for existence. From a purely materialistic point of view, it is very difficult to find any objective measure of what is "good" for society, but it may be Darwinian natural selection. From this point of view, good is what makes a given population prosper and grow, or at least remain at the same level. And from the point of view of this selection, atheistic worldviews are a dead end. As all statistical research shows, highly secularized ones are simply dying out. Probably because they cannot give their users the strong, collective sense of existence that religions provide.
@im-not-alone5587 why does that matter. I haven't heard about her for like 15 years. I listened to her speak maybe a dozen times and wasn't impressed. She was good for helping people leaving islam I guess. I didn't even know she was an atheist until this video. I wouldn't even place her in the top 100 for the movement. The horseman are defunct now anyway. Dawkins is an idiot on everything besides science and has no debate ability. Hitchens is dead but leaves amazing work, but he sucked at debate too. Den is boring. Sam is fantastic, but not out there in public much. He is loaded and happy. There are way better Atheists leading human cognitive evolution.
@@greatexpectations6577 Very real. She fled our country in shame after it became clear she had LIED about almost everything when entering the Netherlands, and kept on lying in order to play the victim she claimed to be.
She once believed in a religion based on the mythology of the ancient Hebrews. She now believes in a religion based on the mythology of the ancient Hebrews. At least now she is on the same payroll as Jordan Peterson, Douglas Murray and Tom Holland. She will be able to retire comfortably.
I really appreciated your comments. I guess a YT comment is not the best place to pour out my soul, but where I was raised, Christians were "good" in that they cared about social inequality. I happened to be in Saskatchewan, where a Baptist minister became premier and introduced the first-ever social medical insurance scheme, dubbed "medicare." My mother, who was a parigon of tolerance, threw an anti-medicare campaigner out on his ear. I had never experienced her anger before. Yet she professes to be a Christian. I got over the Christianity thing, but she was a good person, and so was Tommy Douglas, the person to introduced Medicare to North America.
I so agree with you about the labels thing. When I lost my faith, I tried so hard to find a label that would fit me, but in the end it was like trying on clothes to see if I like the fit, but it never works. There is still a lot I like about Jesus, but even if I believe 80% the same things as Christians do, I'm not a real Christian unless I believe 100% of what they believe. Never mind that there are 30 thousand denominations each with their own criteria. Ugh 😒. These days I feel like I'm equal parts mystic and skeptic. So I feel doomed to be socially homeless if I'm trying to fit in with a label.
No label fits because everyone is a unique individual. Putting yourself in a box designed by someone else isn't going to lead you to happiness or wisdom.
If you want to get into the etymology of the term, it meant something, something like being awake to the reality of structural, indemic racism in the US. That broadened to other marginalized "communities" of minorities. Conservatives picked up the term and made it pejorative.
Its unfortunately the natural end point for anyone that wants to combat the religiofacist influences of Islam as the political left has no appetite for it
Maybe it's because I was too young in those days, but I've literally never seen her before. So even if this was something to care about, it wouldn't have a huge impact because she's frankly not as impactful as some people seem to imply
I have always made a distinction between Christian and Churchist. A Christian studies the teachings of Christ and tries to emulate them. A Chruchist joins and organization and follows their teachings, no matter how awful or immoral. I can count the Christians I have known without taking my shoes off. The Churhists are legion. It looks like Ayaan Hirsi Ali was a Chruchist when she identified as an Atheist. Now she has found a more fashionable wardrobe and has embraced classical Churchism.
If Churchism is so widespread, why isn't actual Christianity any better? Mental gymnastics aside, you're just riffing off the same old atheists are immoral trope.
It’s interesting though how many Christians who claim to not be into church get really nasty when I say I’m not Christian. I think there’s definitely still some pretty harmful stuff in the Bible. Stuff that gives some of these people these controlling and manipulative ideas. Even Jesus said to love God and himself before your spouse and your family, which definitely gives off some cult like mentality.
@@raghavnamasivayam8706 completely agree! I’ve gotten some nasty pushback from people who pretend to be chill and don’t go to church and all that. It’ll still always be hilarious to me when Christians call other Christians not Christian.
A lot of groups (religious or political) seem to make a big deal out of who joins their side and who leaves their opposition as if it's a case for why they're right, but they don't really consider the reasons for why people switch and are dismissive of when people leave their side
Treating atheism as a political position is going to give you the wrong impression of a lot of people. That's a way too make yourself more comfortable with your chosen group, assuming they're like yourself, but the reality is more varied than you give credit to and stereotypes like that will only make advancing a common cause more difficult.
I may be wrong, but I think what he is referring to when he describes atheism as a political position isn't the politics of atheists as a whole or any particular atheist. It is the assumptions that religious people make about an individuals politics when they identify themselves as an atheist. Religious people associate being an atheist with being politically liberal/left, whether that is accurate or not. The issue (in America at least) is that being an atheist is read as being liberal by the majority of people, and is therefore treated as synonymous with being so. TLDR: Atheism is a political position because of the assumptions non-atheists make about the politics of atheists, not because the atheists themselves think it is a political stance.
@pearcat08 watch again starting at 7:11. He's directly starting that he views it as a political position to the extent that he intentionally chooses the label as a political act. At the end of the day we all agree that labels are not definitions, but that's my point. Taking the label atheist and using that as a political indicator is just as silly as assigning political positions to theists. That's stereotyping and gets in the way of understanding each other. Atheism isn't political unless you make it so and doing that by default defaults you to wrong conclusions much of the time.
I think what shes saying isnt particularly unreasonable so long as you share a few, admittedly difficult to share presuppositions. Treating religion in this sense as a technology to push her views because religion permiates minds more feverishly than secular belief is fairly logical. Obviously points about wokeism being a plague and global warming being fake (though im not sure this is her exact stance) are.. less reasonable from my perspective, but if we accept those implicitly to get into her mindset it makes decent sense.
I agree with what you're saying about her using religion as a technology. I'm not capable of reading her mind, but this seems most like a strategic position for her to take imo. Anyway, the major reason that I deconverted was because of my opposition to fundamentalism of all types so I try very hard not engage in that kind of thought process as an atheist.
Insightful comment, OP. Christianity is an insanely successful meme and is meant to be easy to spread. I do wonder whether she’s going to speak more on the supernatural elements of the faith like the afterlife and divine intervention, which I think are some of the biggest assets to Christianity’s ability to spread.
@@GeneticallyModifiedSkepticAlways interesting to me when religious folk concentrate more on the social efficacy of religion as opposed to it's objective truth.
While I agree, does that mean that she's Christian? I know I'm perilously close to commiting the No True Scotsman fallacy, but can someone be a Christian without asserting that Jesus is, at the very least, a person capable of wielding divine powers? I feel like, were I still a Christian, I wouldn't accept her calling herself as such due to her lack of faith, which is a core virtue of abrahamic religions.
Well, imagine I wanted to oppose islam and all the harm it brings. Paradoxically, the (liberal ?) left is currently not the place for me, is it. An islamophobe like me would pretty much have to join the right. Though converting to christianity would be a bit much for me...
I find interesting that most of those "new atheists" of old actually seem today much more politically aligned with the religious conservatives than any socially progressive current. Really goes to show that "atheism" in itself, with no qualifiers, is of pretty much no significance. Someone may naturally become an atheist due to their pursuits regarding Ethics, logical reasoning, free thought and skepticism and so on, but the label itself is empty of moral and ethical content.
If modern day social progressives act like the religious right of the 1980s then yeah those atheist will not side with them. They are mostly liberals not leftist
I’ve seen a few links in my social media feeds that reference her, and I’m like “Who?” I don’t think we should care, especially since we don’t have to hang onto the words of what well-known atheists say. It’s not them that we should be concerned about, but rather reasons why we should or should not believe in and adhere to religions. Also, I have a similar reason to yours for calling myself an atheist. I think that agnostic does not communicate the right idea as to my beliefs-it seems to convey the idea that I’m searching for the divine or at least waiting to see it. Agnostic Atheist is a bit long for my tastes, and so I go with Athiest to easily convey that I really dont buy the idea that there are gods, and that my personal feelings on religion are. “No thanks, I’ll pass, and I won’t go out of my way to support religious institutions .”
I wouldn't have noticed that it's unscripted if you hadn't announced it at the start. I like that you remind people that real life actions are much more important than (self ascribed) labels and things like this don't really matter all that much.
I don't know who she is in her heart of hearts, but from my perspective it seems like she could have been a valuable ally if the more liberal media were so afraid of any muslim criticism. She was pushed into the arms of the right conservative moment and leaned into it more and more to find acceptance. She might have been a loss for the atheist movement, but that loss happened years ago now, and this article makes no difference
She's know different from sam Harris in my opinion but at least sam harris.caught on to the charade of the right Wing...the right Wing only entertained him cause of his anti Islam beliefs but once he expressed beliefs opposed to Christianity they turned on him
When I first became an atheist about 10 years ago, the label of atheism was everything to me because I was so angry at my former religion for lying to me. Now, it only matters whether you're a good person or not. Sam Harris is much less appealing to me because of his politics and the people he identifies with. I'm much more in line with Mehdi Hasan now, despite the fact that he's a Muslim.
I always figured that being woke meant one had awaken to the understanding that there is injustice in the world and that we need to fight it. I'm generally in favor of being woke with the exception of people become so passionate about the fight for justice that they want to turn everything into a battle. In a way that can remind me of the worst aspects of fundamentalist religion.
@darwinskeeper421 That was the original meaning of woke it comes from Black American slang. The Right has co-opted the word as a pejorative for anything they don’t like or agree with.
No one needed to be 'awoken' or 'woke' to realize there is injustice in the world and that it needs to be fought, this has been going on for thousands of years. A better original definition would be that those oriented towards social justice are "alert to racial prejudice and discrimination" however, since they have adopted a post-modernist lens of racism they find it in all aspects of society and every individual. Race and racial dynamics are how they see the world in a sort of Foucault-ian power struggle and if that is the lens you view the world through you'll find it everywhere. While I agree the right has co-opted the word; unfortunately, and diluted its meaning the same thing was done years before by the left with terms like racist, Nazi, fascism, 'far-right', SA, etc... being used so casually and being re-defined annually that those terms have also lost much of their meaning. It's a cultural game now that both sides are playing against each other, orchestrated by the rich and intellectual elite to keep themselves in power while we fight amongst ourselves out of pettiness and an inability to articulate a unifying vision. @tevbuff takes the easy way out by defining woke as anything "the right doesn't like" instead of contending with serious definitions of woke. I'll add some of the more serious definitions below: 1) “Woke” is political correctness on steroids. It's government and corporate enforced authoritarian political correctness. As sometimes expressed by de-platforming or cancel culture. 2) A state of awareness that allows one to find injustice in everything except their own behavior. That all of society is currently and intentionally structured to oppress (e.g. racial , sexual , class , able-body, beauty oppressions.) That any gaps in achievement between large groups is due to said oppressions and that equity (equality of outcome) is the answer. 3) Woke is a colloquial term for critical social justice, which is a term that encompasses all critical theories. A critical theory is an application of postmodernism and Hegelian dialectics (thinking economic Marxism - dialectical materialism) but to social issues. 4) Woke is used more often now to term someone hypocritical who acts 'enlightened' despite the fact that they are extremely close-minded and are unable to accept other people's criticism or differing perspective. Especially considering the existence of echo chamber(media) that helped them to find other like-minded individuals, thus, further solidifying their 'progressive' opinion when in fact they are virtue signaling, morally self-righteous, self-aggrandizing authoritarian lefties that eschew (disregard) traditional enlightenment and liberal values. 5) “woke” is the grammaticality incorrect abuse of the word awake. It's meaning is as stupid as the misuse of the word. The people who spew the word are far from being awake or enlightened. They display all of the bigoted traits they claim to hate. They intimidate, ridicule or extort anyone who doesn't agree with them or bow down to their primal demands. I'll end with a clear example of the bigotry and prejudice enabled by wokeness. I am sure everyone has read Ibram X Kendi's book on antiracism by this point. Therein he takes a polarizing, if not Manichean view, on the positions one must hold regarding racism. Either you are racist or anti-racist. The devil is in the details though as to be an anti-racist one must actively discriminate; as Kendi says, "The only remedy to racist discrimination is antiracist discrimination." Kendi attempts to sidestep the contradiction here that "the only way to fight racism is by being racist" by redefining the word racism and essentially stating you cannot be racist to certain groups of people, i'll let you figure out what group that is. The hypocrisy is so palpable though, and the phraseology so damaging, that he had to remove it from his latest edition of the book. This is good example of why so many center-left, independent, and on the right deride "wokeness."
i enjoyed this unscripted video! it was shorter, but easier to follow along with and felt more natural to listen to. would love more unscripted content in the future!
My initial impulse was to be glad that she didn't represent atheism, but I'm not entirely convinced any of the "Four Horseman" have necessarily aged well. (I'd be curious to see if others think differently) Now, it feels more like the movement they represent is a bit of mainstream atheism's awkward puberty stage. The potential for so many great things, propelling us into the next stage of life, but some parts still make you cringe.
I haven't heard anything particularly out there about Sam Harris but I don't follow him anymore. He seems like the most boring of the four horseman and anytime I click anything of his it's like listening to absolutely nothing for 30+ minutes. I don't know if he aged poorly so much as he just kind of got stuck and left behind somewhere. Though I haven't heard about Ayaan in years either so maybe Sam will pop up and declare he is actually Buddhist and not secular Buddhist anymore or something.
@@tiryaclearsong421 Yeah, Ayaan is the most recent example. But Richard Dawkins has been the big one. He's been putting out a lot of anti-trans rhetoric using his background as a Biologist to give him authority. He's hosted anti-trans authors and anti-trans activists on his podcast and claims that to accept trans people is to deny reality. He's astounded by this because his goal as an atheist activist is to help the public move away from reality-denying nonsense and now so many atheists are falling for it. He's a prime example of the hero who lived long enough to become a villain. He has so many connections to currently practicing biologists and he could absolutely have a conversation with some highly appraised biologist who holds a different position on him about trans issues. He could have a conversation about that, ask follow up questions, deconstruct the assumptions he believes underlies "trans ideology" and then even if he still disagrees, could leave his audience with something to think about. But instead, he invites pundits (who are not biologists) to help him dunk on trans people and bitch about atheists who fall for "wokeism". Lazy. Reckless. Disgusting.
I actually understand why Ayyan made this move. I'm no fan of her as she's always appeared pretty mercenary. But that aside, I know where she's coming from, because I think many of us who left a religion, hit a wall at some point. You see religion is so sure of itself. It promises ultimate meaning, certainty and comfort. It solves humanity's existential crisis. Things are black and white, good and evil. Unfortunately as Albert Camus pointed out, life is absurd. The world is not black and white and reason alone cannot provide objective meaning. Any meaning derived by reason alone is subjective and open to doubt and counter perspective. As for religion - you can't argue with that - "God said it." It's reassuringly immovable. Things are as God ordained and this is how it must be for all time. For some of us, leaving our religion places us in an uncomfortable position. Firstly we no longer have that crutch we used for so long and have to walk on our own. That can be enormously difficult and some might find they just can't cope. Secondly, countering religious certainty with subjectivity can be a daunting task. As Bertrand Russell said "Fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts." There is a temptation for many to commit "philosophical suicide" as Camus put it. To perform a "leap of faith." To suspend rationality and instead claim knowledge or believe things that go beyond the limits of rationality. If for nothing else - as in Ayyan's case - as a bulwark against another religion and/or the decline of the "West" as she sees it. However, while I understand this temptation, its not one I could ever give in to it. Because the meaning it gives to life is an illusion. Plus any advantage it might give us over our perceived "enemies" would come at the expense of living a lie and being false to one's own self.
While I agree with most of what you said I do feel its important to point out woke is and continues to be a thing entirely separate from progressivism. It is by all means a good thing to stick up for those different from yourself, but even this can take bad turns, when you don't ask how they want to be represented, and try to play the hero, and ultimately piss off more people than you help bring to their cause. And I am happy things like the Panderverse from South Park are taking that on. I do not in anyway think your content is woke, you maintain the ideals of progressivism, because you always are willing to give fair criticism to all religious beliefs regardless of who they belong to Christian, Muslim, or otherwise. I myself left my religion at 13 around 20 years ago now, so trust me I am no ally to religious apologists, but when it comes to some of their talking points I still say that a broke clock is right twice a day for the wrong reason.
I would argue that most modern day progressives that would be called woke or defend woke are in no way actual progressives considering what they advocate for now day compare to like 30 or more years ago
She says she chooses to believe. I don’t think belief works that way, and I’d say I don’t think she believes it either. Rather, she is giving a reason that the religious can’t attack so easily
Good analysis. Although I don't really care either, I am disappointed that she has unwittingly given a small measure of validation to the religious crazies.
The fact that she worked with PregerU, really tells me everything I need to know about her motivations and willingness to blatantly lie to achieve her goals. There's a reason I refer to them as PropagandaU; Honesty has never been a quality associated with PropagandaU, and the number of times they have intentionally lied about what was in a Study they were referencing is a solid demonstration of their untrustworthiness. The fact that she spent years working with a group, that has been constantly caught outright lying; really says a lot about her "honesty" in her conversion. Now that she's becoming more and more political, it makes sense for her to pretend to be a Christian; there's still places where "atheist is evil" has been Heavily Indoctrinated into the population.
For sure I wouldn't consider PragerU as always intellectually honest, or well, honest honest. Not to defend them, but there are a lot of dishonest organizations. It is hard to find one that isn't. This is why the left and right will always find something wrong with the other side. But there is far too much preaching to the choir out there. Liberals should join conservative shows and conservatives should join with liberals. The idea of not working with them is uncomfortable to me as it encourages more tribalism.
@@username7763 I'm fine with Conservatives, I'm not ok with right-wing Propagandists that make a living selling lies. I have not heard a single argument from PragerU, that wasn't intentionally misleading in the way it's phrased, or deliberately manipulated in the way they represent other arguments. I started studying Philosophy 20+ years ago, and ran across Dennis Prager garbage back then. I know a lot of Conservatives, I grew up in rural Alaska, where Democrat was a dirty word. The state is hardcore, Independent Conservative; they're so Independent that they were one of the only Republican dominated states that legalized abortion. The real problem, is education and awareness. Many, many Conservatives only interact with political ideas, through the various forms of Propaganda garbage that is put out as "media" My parents are atheists, that have never heard of PragerU, and have never gone to church. They also have no experience with non-binary people, they are uncomfortable around homosexuals; both of them got sucked into the right-wing Propaganda programs like Faux "News" and OAN. Since they have no direct experiences outside of where they have been in rural Alaska for the last 50+ years, they take all the Incredibly Ignorant stances that right-wingers thrive on. The problem really is simply many Conservatives are stuck 50+ years in the past, and cannot accept that the definitions they were fed as children, need to change. When humans beings are telling them, "No, I'm not binary, that doesn't work." and the conservative mindset is "You're just confused/mentally ill." then there really isn't any middle ground. When I was growing up, being homosexual was considered to be "mentally ill" exactly in the same way that now they are treating trans people. They are so sure their way is "correct" they literally call it "grooming" to accept a trans child's individual expression. The major problem, is we have way too many humans Indoctrinated into perceiving the world incorrectly. Ancient Mythology needs to stay in the past, with the people that believed in those Myths; we don't need the words of ancient goat herders to be what defines modern humans.
@@13shadowwolf Interesting background and there are plenty of things there I agree with. But you lost me with "No, I'm not binary, that doesn't work." That's non-scientific. Mammals have male and female sexes and that is it. The whole gender spectrum is totally different from homosexuality as that has been scientifically shown to happen. If someone's mind doesn't match reality, then something is wrong in their mind. If they are male but every neuron in their brain says female, their brain is wrong. I am diagnosed as mentally ill. My brain doesn't match reality over certain things. It isn't something to be ashamed of. I don't expect everyone else to pretend like what my brain is telling me is actually reality. It just isn't. My brain is just wrong; this happens sometimes. Biology is strange.
First I’ve heard of her, which is weird because I’ve read books by 2 of the mentioned 4 horsemen (Dawkins, Hitchens), watched tons of talks by Sam Harris, and I’m sure I’ve seen some things from Dennet at some point (guess I should look him up).
Not gonna lie, I didn't follow her enough during the years to say whether this could be "a loss for atheists", but I can say from her article that she just reminded us all why it's important to not share a bunch of statements after you had a celebration full of Holy Wine.
Don't forget that this tendency could as well be a motivation for those who profess atheism. But I agree with you that she is only fishing for the best way to amass money and notoriety. I am Muslim and I don't care what religion she follows. I confess that I hated her way of talking about muslims always in demining ways. Her books were used by extremists to kill in Norway, new Zesland and Quebec. There is no difference between her and the extremist muslims demining other people. I hope that she will calm down her rhetoric and at least try to convert us by showing us the benefits of her new faith instead of throwing accusations on us.
She weaponized a religion that deeply matters to billions of people, wielding it as a political weapon, exploiting it as a vehicle for her own self interested goals to stay relevant, and she had the gall to complain about nihilism? The move she pulled was one of the most cynical, nihilistic move there is.
I'm Dutch and I consider myself an Atheist with progressive political views. Ayaan Hirsi Ali used to be a Dutch citizen, and a member of the Labour party, before becoming more conservative and later being expelled from this country. Do I care at all that she has left Atheism? Nope, Christian conservatives can have her.
@@Sephiroth144 For really you did not get those empty Videos where godless alone people constantly talk about God, showing their obsession, are made not to help anyhow your godless alone life but to trap you into this empty stupid cult called atheism they know we live in the time of stupidity and godless trash people so they need to capture them as more as they can. They know you are the most stupid, weakest and alone people in the face of earth and they need to take advantages on you. They know you run anytime you see godless ass to kiss it. That what this empty BS cult atheism make you be, without God and without dignity. But let see how you are in trapped in this cult: Let see how many godless rats are here with their empty words and life, just as their cult called atheism. Why? Why Godless alone trash people want see the existence of God when it is clear that if they and all the things they see around (earth, stars, planets and so on) if they are creation something must created them. For real no respect for those godless blind trash people. God is what they do not know have and do not know in their miserable alone trash life. But God will take care about them as well, once death as anyone alse. Let's hope we will have better generation that those godless alone trash one.... We really do not need this empty and worthless cult called atheism and those modern godless alone idiots who thinks God cares to exist what those poor alone people think about him. No respect for them and their miserable godless alone life. (they are also godless ass kissers, as they run anytime they see a godless alone person... that what happen when you do not have God in your life, you lose your dignity, and you start to be disgusting in that way)... Oh anyway when you stopped to believe in God something died on you but you are so pathetic that you are not willing to admit it (right?). What trashy people without shame they deny their creator, and they will be judge for it.... Liars ad patetich as any Goddeniers. so their worthless empty life without him.... They are even the weakest people, because if they are wrong, they are the ones who will pay for denying God... Won't be in their shoes. No respect for them.... I told you this godless is the worst generation (those people are just empty and worthless as the cult they are in), and when it will be gone with their stupid empty, worthless atheism that does not going anywhere, that do not offer or teach anything, none will complain about it, not even those very weak losers!!!!! ... Do not call them atheist but godless alone souless trash. Let's forget about those worthless empty people and their worthless and empty cult do not even good to clean the dirtiest motel. WHEN YOU WILL BE GONE NONE WILL COMPLAIN ABOUT YOU AND YOUR STUPID CULt CALLED ATHEISM. You are the worst of people, no respect for you:... those are juss godless alone trash people, liers as any Godeniers with less thing sacred in their miserable alone godless life… those weak people are so weak and alone that they wait for an empty videos from an obsessed godless person to kiss his ass, disgustingly (no God, No Dignity) it would not change their life, actually more alone and empty, (they do not even have a real community) empty life they live empty shit they are in like this stupid cult called Atheism! No respect for them. (They are very weak, empty and frustrated people, a life that none will accepted, but those godless alone trash idiots).. those who say there is no God will pay for it, soon or later... No won't be a godless alone trash person into an empty cult not even good for my ass such atheism, that offers them nothing. But emptiness and lonlyness for their miserabile godless alone life. No respect for them. They are just empty as their cult called atheism. But they will pay this soon or later, and all the emptiness for nothing they are facing in their ridicolous miserable alone life! It is time to throw on the trash empty atheism and godless alone trash people, they are not even worthless to clean shit. You can not respect them and their emptiness! It is over for you, trash is not even good to clean you of all this atheism BS. No respect for you. Let's really hope we can have a better generation and forget this godless alone trash one as quickly as possible. IT IS OVER, it is time for you and this nosense called atheism to go back from the nothing you come from. No respect for you. You will pay all this shit, soon or later... Today I will put your BS atheism in the toilet and flash it and you godless alone will shut up, ok? You are worthless and empty as your stupid cult. No respect for you.... This is the worst, weakest, ampty generation, and when it will be over with their stupid empty cult called atheism none will complain it. IT'S IS OVER, godless alone trash.... Those godless alone poor people are playing with the fire, and they will pay for it, and even badly........ They are so desperated and frustrated in and empty stupid life... No sorry for you. Let's hope in the next generation, let's hope in a better generation, and let's forget this one and trhow it on the trash with their stupid, nosense cult called atheism that will lead them anywhere. No respect for you again....
@@HM-iy3dc She wasn't expelled from the Netherlands, she was expelled from Parliament, (technically, she was given a date that she would no longer be able to serve in the Dutch Parliment), because she lied on her asylum papers when she originally came to the Netherlands, (using a grandparents surname, which IS (well, was anyway- pretty sure allowed now, but not 100%) allowed under Dutch, but also a false birthdate. (There is some debate on the specifics of the reasoning - escaping a forced marriage - as accounts vary.) She was able to keep her Dutch citizenship, but was disallowed from continuing in the Dutch Parliament (and the reprecussions were pretty serious for administration); she chose to move to the US around this time.
If I were a christian, this would seriously frustrate me. Her reasoning being first and foremost as a political tool to "combat" ideologies is so disingenuous it is sickening. Having my religion waved around like a weapon and being displayed as a stance instead of a spiritual practice is disgusting. I honestly hope she stays a Christian, she's an embarrassment of a human being that I don't want soiling secularist views.
When "woke-ism" is thrown around, I tend to roll my eyes, particularly when it's coming from the Fox News/Tucker Carlson types. But when Ayaan says it, there's literally no question in my mind what she's referring to. Specifically, what Ayaan is referring to is the identity politics left-of-center, that she's even been a direct target of. She's spent most of her career as an intellectual attempting to combat Islamism with a particular focus on how damaging it is to women. So it's quite galling when so-called feminists reject her as an ally because it includes being critical of Islam. This is the fundamental double standard she's been staring down the barrel of as long as I've followed her work. And now these same morons are celebrating the Hamas attacks in Israel. This is what Ayaan calls "woke-ism." I call it abject stupidity and runaway cult-think.
Exactly. "But how could anyone, who is presumably against slavery, be against the advocating of minority rights..." Modified skeptic, ladies and gentlemen.
It has everything to do with politics. She wants to rise thru the ranks of a political career. She wants to ride the conservative GOP blueprint for political career success. To do this, you need that “I’m a christian.” card. I think she’s still a nonbeliever. She just needed that card to continue to promote herself and pander to her potential conservative voters. I have very little to no respect for politicians to begin with regardless of affiliation. I just don’t like the system at all.
I saw her name floating around and didn't know who she was. I'm "only" an atheist and don't (anymore) think of it as one of the most critical parts of my identity, so the only recognition I got from the name was, "That's not Ilhan Omar's daughter, is it?!"
Some random thoughts after watching this. Hirsi Ali in her writings always seemed interested in utilitarianism as a philosophy more than anything else. So my curiosity is what might she have found in Christ whether, now, the Bible, or some other context that she sees as useful? That's my curiosity about her thinking. My, other thought is that I wonder if she has actually given up a secular mindset. On the liberal/left side many socialist and humanist thinkers find admiration for Christ. In the Bible there are ups and downs about his supernatural take, yet there's a strain of kindness to ones fellow man that many secular minded people find in the life of service. There's nothing saying that she has not found inspiration there, while not exactly practicing the rituals therefrom. Does anyone know what strain of Christian reason she has come to associate with? And one final thought. Many contemporary atheists seem to associate with humanism and progressivism or both. But there's always those that are taken with things like Ayn Rant, Nietzsche, or libertarian ideas. The atheist position is as much a part of conservative thinking as liberal minded ideas I have found over the years. Just some thoughts, thank you.
Truth. Even if you believe you don’t conform as atheist, you are Conforming.. with your group too, if you change you are in trouble, they distance themselves from You., That is not with theist but atheist as well The power of conformity!
@@stylesrj even dressing like South Park, you are conforming by imitating them.. you are not free you still under the control and influence on South Park.. they are holding your head with 2 hand and controlling it..
This is more about acceptance. I worked in DC for many years, and had the pleasure of hearing her speak. And I saw closely how she was treated by both the secular left and religious right back when both wanted to hear what she had to say. To say she was treated badly by secular audiences would be an understatement. This was mostly, as mentioned in the video, because the left was (perhaps overly) sensitive to anything resembling Islamophobia. And her acceptance on the right was clearly because she was saying things they wanted to hear about radical forms of Islam. So yes, after years of this treatment, she became sympathetic to the perspective of those who showed her compassion and understanding. This is not difficult to understand, and as allies of LGBTQ people know full well, sometimes it's personal interactions rather than rational arguments that move people on these issues. It works both ways. Had secular audiences been more empathetic to her personally, I suspect the outcome would have been different.
I’m not getting the impression she is now pro-Jesus. She always seemed more anti-Islam than atheist. Her christianity seems like a continuation of that.
Exactly this.
What you're suggesting sounds, to me, as if she heard Pordan Jeterson's ridiculous nonsense and thought to herself "yeah that guy is right". Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if that were the case. "Um, liek, I'm _culturally_ christian? Because, um, liek, I clean my room, and also something about, liek, lobsters or whatever?"
@@EdwardHowton Her voice always sounded more Fascist sheik than valley girl but still fun
This is my impression as well.
I've run into a handful of ex-muslim women who are functionally just anti-muslim bigots. Taking valid criticisms of islam and muslim majority countries and turning them into essentialist ideas about all muslims. Which like, the overreaction is understandable coming from a woman who not only experienced islam firsthand but also experienced leaving islam. But it's still an overreaction which has lead to unjustifiable beliefs. So, pretty cringe.
100% agree. It really just reeks of "I'm so anti-Muslim" I'm going to whatever I view as the winning team which in itself damages your credibility (even though the reaction is understandable). I'm not Muslim but I've met enough Muslims and ex-Muslims to feel some level of embarrassment seeing how she is acting.
Nobody undermines Christianity more than political Christians themselves.
Very true. I used to be a “political Christian” in the sense that I identified as a Christian because I thought it was good for society but it was actually becoming a Christian and studying Christianity that caused me to abandon that view. I still believe Christianity is good but that’s not why I’m a Christian. The view that we should believe Christianity is true because it helps society is fundamentally based on anti-Christian thinking. Christianity should be embraced because it is true and for no other reason.
Christianity should be undermined by its hypocrisy
As should atheism
You insightfully speak of manmade Christianity, it’s ideology, dogma, group ego, and social tyranny
But you are petty and bitter
Which is why you speak of THIS and not Christ, or his message, which shall never be undermined 🙌🏼
Nobody undermines [BLANK] more than political [BLANK]s themselves.
@maximgruner I think it would be understandable to be a doubtful Christian, like you are unsure, but don't want to abandon your religion. But converting so you can use the religion as a political foundation or worse a tool, that's inexcusable and gross. Maybe this is what the lying to the holy spirit sin is referring to.
@@maximgruner - In what way is christianity "true?"
It’s weird that we have this dichotomy between Christianity and atheism. Just once I would like to hear someone say “I’m no longer an atheist; I believe in the Hellenistic pantheon of gods and goddesses who sometimes interact with humanity.”
Those people exist! I know polytheists who used to be atheists. In fact it’s not uncommon for pagans to be former atheists
Oh, those are just Wiccans. They're harmless. Mostly just humanists with a little sprinkle of the esoteric to keep things interesting and fun.
@ChristopherSadlowski There are MANY more forms of paganism then Wicca.
And some are far from "harmless", particularly those that have hijacked Thor and Odin for the far right.
There are emergent pagan sects in Scandinavia as well. So your idea is not far from the truth. Also, many are making the case that modern leftist religiosity is a sort of polytheistic worship of various demigods given its removal from the scientific and rational.
@@stevenvaleriojr1177 I never comment on YT because it's almost always asking for trouble (usually ends up being a theistic debate, which I'm not interested in having), but I have to say that's not always the case. Speaking solely for myself, I always identified as atheist (as well as right-leaning, believe it or not), but have recently embraced Norse Paganism and also am way more left-leaning now. I do worship and give offerings to Odin, specifically, but I do wear a Mjolnir, as well. As I said, I have no interest in any sort of debate, I'm just putting it out there that some of us (I'd hazard to say *most*) are not the way ppl tend to think. Every other Pagan I've met who is serious about it really are harmless. We just want to be left alone to our beliefs. That's not to say there aren't any around as you described, I just wouldn't consider them the majority. Also, to @GeneticallyModifiedSkeptic: Love the shirt as well as your content, keep it up! 😊
It's very telling that her "reasons for becoming a Christian" didn't include anything about believing that Christianity was actually true, but rather just seeing it as a utility tool for accomplishing political goals.
What surprised me is how readily every Christian seems to be to just accept and embrace it. I thought a lot more of them would be calling her out for the fact that she all but admits that she doesn't actually believe it's true, but instead the majority of the Christians commenting on it seem to be embracing her hypocritical adopting of the label.
That surprised you? After Trump?
It’s almost like these type of people only care about superficial labels/identities so they can set you apart from the threatening “others”. Once you claim you’re on their side, even without giving any justifications as to why, you’re good and they’ll more readily accept what you have to say. Works like a charm every time
The most dangerous kind of misinformation is misinformation that a person likes. In this scenario, the headline said a thing they like. After that it was effectively a speedrun for the share button.
“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful.”
― Seneca
(c. 4 BCE-65 CE)
You stagnate in the bitterness of social issues, forgive her and understand I Am
Essentially she has come full circle from being the person that religion is intended to control, to being the person who wants to use religion to control others. Lol.
The cognitive dissonance is strong with this one
It's remarkable how readily she is able to go all in with her conservative allies and "convert" when she knows that the core reasons why theocratic Islam encroaches on rights to freedom and dignity are the same as what drove Christianity to do the same historically (& even now with Christian nationalist movements): the dogmatic call to obey and control others.
How do you figure?
@@dennisduncan7561 if I take Drew's description of what she said, it sounds like she just wants to use religion to counter religion. It's meant to control people and is an easy way to reinforce and opposition group to whatever she feels is a threat.
Wait, wouldn't that be half a circle...?
I really liked this video. Short, digestible, and raised some really good points about how easily people on either side can claim a victory without even thinking about why they're calling it a win. My brain added one wrinkle today
Similarly, how easy it is to ignore a defeat by not knowing what woke even means.
😂 thanks for your concise spot on commentary. I love the brain wrinkle comment! 😆
I'm neurodivergent and even though religion is my special interest, I struggle a lot to collect the energy I need to watch a 30min video. This short videa helped me reconect with my interests after depression made it almost impossible to do so
Maybe the real horseman was the friends we made along the way!
❤ you drew! Keep up the amazing work. I've been binging you and Taylor's content. Your compassion and empathy is palpable.
This was so funny 😂😂😭😭😭
🐎 🤠
Tysm ❤️
You friendeists you!!!!!!!!
I doubt these 4 Horseman could even ride a horse and especially the 5th, well She was never a real Equestrian in the first place 😢😂
Hard to accuse her of never being a real atheist when, based on that article, she seems to still be one right now.
😅
Good point
Plus, you don't want to go down that same line of thought as Christians who claim that those who deconvert must have never been real Christians.
Like Drew said, it's not about what you label yourself as, it's what you do that shows your values. And based off of that, we can evaluate your trustworthyness.
Ayaan has always (to my knowledge) been an apologist for center-right political values so I have not seen her as a particularly empathic person.
@@justanothernick3984 So you're prejudicial? Did i win!?
Ayaan Hirsi Ali: It's condescending for Western scholars to say that the 9/11 terrorists weren't motivated by religion, but by political, historical, economic, and social grievances.
Also Ayaan Hirsi Ali: I'm gonna call myself Christian, not because of my theological convictions, but because of my political, historical, economic, and social grievances.
Ayaan is an opportunist, her religion is herself and what benefits her. From lying on her asylum application, to entering Dutch politics as a left-winger, shifting to the right when that made her more popular, to the extreme right when that gave her more clout. As right-wing politics in the USA is entwined with conservative Christianity, her becoming a Christian is only a 'logical' next step.
(I'm a Dutch ex-muslim, same age as Ayaan. I followed her career from the beginning.)
This is a perfect description of her. She is essentially a female version of Trump. She doesn't believe in any of the religious nonsense but will claim to be what she is not in order to further her popularity among the newly embraced crowd. This is the worst type of character in a human.
Very true. She’s been opportunistic for as long as we’ve seen, which is a lot longer than the English speaking world has seen her. She’s an intellectual lightweight at best.
I was about to say; it seems like Ayaan reactionary atheisted her way all the way back to a Christian nationalist bent
She and Niall Ferguson were made for each other.
Or the left pushed her to the right by constantly defending the religion that abused her. Eventually your going to move where you are excepted
Her being on prageru is already enough reason to never care about anything she has to say.
Yeah, it didn't seem like she had very far to go to flip.
''She wasn't really an atheist'' huh?
Sounds familiar xD
@@im-not-alone5587 no, we don't care if she's an atheist, and she's almost certainly not a christian. she's just an opportunistic reactionary grifter with no actual beliefs.
@im-not-alone5587 I've read that comment a few times and nowhere does the OP make that accusation. Not sure where you're getting that interpretation from unless you're trying to make a straw man.
@@gabrieledwards1066 I mean, GMS said he himself read some some atheists say it
imagine becoming a christian because you're afraid of being woke
I wonder if most atheists aren't so much atheist, but anti-Christian...like those brooding teenagers that are contrarian for the sake of it.
😂😂😂
Literally reactionary christianity
@@danikinzstar "... mumble mumble Anti-Christ mumble mumble ..."
Imagine being so woke, you make Christianity look desirable...
Everytime I hear any right leaning pundit using "wokeism" as a blanket thing to slander something that doesn't fit their worldview I feel like an exasperated Inigo Montoya telling a baffled Vezzini that he keeps using a word that doesn't mean what he thinks it means lol
The meaning doesn't matter. In fact, its meaning should be actively ignored since it's a right-wing dogwhistle. Same with "common sense". 😕
I feel like Deputy Samuel Gerard of the U.S. Marshalls, who once told his underlings he didn't like them using words that have no meaning around him. "Woke" is so broad and vague at this point that it is pretty much meaningless. Ditto for "masterpiece".
Yeah, it seems to just mean anything culturally associated with liberalism or LGBT people. It's so vague it's hard to know what people mean.
The thing is, Vezzini *_couldn't_* conceive of the events he labeled "inconceivable"; he wasn't using the word wrong, it absolutely means what he thought it meant, but in doing so he just highlighted his own lack of imagination.
I call myself woke and see it as a good thing.
If someone called me woke, no matter how negatively they say it, I will take i as a complement.
It seems to be a trend among right leaning
ight wing atheist that make their money from being right wing, to claim that they are now Christians. I am not sure if she has genuinely converted, or if being Christian just fits her grift more.
So if someone from the right is making content it's a "grift" but if someone from the left is making content it's not?
Yes bc right wing n Christianity is a marriage now...being right wing has nothing to do with religion but today's retrumplicans have made it that way😅
@@darrenshark73All you're doing there is mirroring what they say about atheists. IMO your stance seems more reactionary than thought out.
@@taylorlibby7642 Because what are left wingers grifting on??? Human fights????? Right wingers have a reason to use Christianity to their advantage if they hate certain people, like gay and trans people, just because it fits their narrative, not because it's actually helpfu or anything.
Maybe some left wingers, who I haven't seen often, do this but it is *SO COMMON* among right wingers I see it all the time.
I mean, even the "left wingers" I *HAVE* seen who do that eventually suddenly become right wing extremists. I mean, look at the person who tried to copyright the bi flag!!! They suddenly hard right turned into being anti-lgbtq+ *JUST* because they didn't get to copyright *A FLAG MADE BY SOMEONE ELSE!!!!!*
They do it because they want recognition and profit for their weird or hateful views, not because they have genuine intentions. "Let me copyright someone else's work so I make money!" "Let me, a trans person, hate other trans people so right wingers can call me slurs but toss me some peanuts!!!" "Let me call drag queens gr00mers as hundreds of kids get m0lested at my church, but we don't do anything because we believe in "forgivness" or some shit!!!!!"
One is *CLEARLY* not like the other when it comes to intentions.
@@taylorlibby7642 A lot right-wing talking points can be traced back to Lee Atwater and the "new Southern strategy." You can't say the n-word, so you say forced busing and states' rights kind of thing.
They're saying the same shit now, just using different terms. Some of them know it, some of them don't care, some are ignorant. They're pushing states' rights when they mean restricting freedoms, and they try to make political arguments but push them and they either can't give a good reason or fall back on religion.
So yes, they're lying or at least lying via omission to the people consuming the content and profiting off it. They're grifters. In my opinion.
I have followed "atheist-to-religion" stories and if you listen carefully, they started out religious and atheism looks more like an interlude or experiment. Very few people with no family background in Christianity suddenly wake up and just know that Jesus is the ONE.
Except the ones who were raised in non- religios and atheistic household. Just accept that a person can have a "ah-ha!" ☝️ moment in believing in God just like the host of this video has done in NOT believing in God; both can be true,
It's a presumption that very few people with no Christian background become Christian later. I know many cases where that's true. Also, that doesn't disprove Christianity.
I know people raised in atheist families and lol, they're never becoming religious.
There's a reason all religions make sure to indoctrinate children when they're young. If they are allowed to grow and mature first it's extremely unlikely they'll fall for the fantasies.
@yamabushiwarrior996 note that they said "very few" and not "no one".
I love that all of these atheists "don't care" about this conversion so much, we have a ten minute video explaining how much they don't care (with a total time investment of probably a few hours to write, film, edit, etc.) and then 3k comments about how much they really don't care guys.
This is why it's gotten harder to take GMS seriously lately. Obviously, you care to some extent. You made a video. Just own that.
We've all been saying, all of us, for _years_ now, 'It's a shame us atheists are so moral because there'd be so much money in being a 'former atheist' and working for Fox or something.'
WELP. It was only a matter of time before someone with dubious ethics would make the predictable jump.
She's worked with PragerU for years. She made the jump quite a while ago, and is only just now declaring it for political purposes.
Considering the timing, likely as a shield against potential Islamophobic comments against the Palestinian people, seeing as she's already gone on record to praise Netanyahu.
@@AndaraBledin As I said, I really didn't know much about this person, outside of the two (so far) videos about her "conversion" that have come out the past few days. Her appearance in a PragerU video didn't seem like a new thing, from the single clip in the video.
Basically, she's always been an opportunist. They dodged a bullet when they chose Daniel Dennett over this sad embarrassment to humanity for the "Four Horsemen".
I'd put even odds on her doing the _salat_ five times a day still despite being an "ex" muslim. You can't get more false than this kind of trash-for-pay.
I've never heard of her until now ... but I have a question:
*Does she actually believe that some dude killed by the Romans for sedition about 2,000 years ago was actually resurrected by a god?*
Because of she doesn't actually believe that, then she's as "Christian" as I am. And I'm an atheist.
of course not. she's a conservative, she doesn't have beliefs other than "i want as much money as possible."
I think that she (and Lil' Jordy Petes, to name another) are cleaving to what you might call "civilizational christianity" and not doctrinal or biblical literalist christianity. You know how "the west" used to also be called "christendom" by westerners and non-westerners, despite still having plenty of secular foundations and secular values? It's kinda like that.
It's muddy but I can see where they're coming from. Truth is, "atheism" isn't really a movement or worldview any more than "non-stamp collecting" is a hobby. People look for some sort of constitution and often end up leaning on old ways that come with some baggage of supernaturalism/spiritism; even if those people are also effectively naturalists.
... resurrected by a god, but also *was* that same god, sacrificing himself to appease himself, so that his own creations could by worshipping his mutilated self avoid the eternal hellfire that he would otherwise inflict on them, because they shared the guilt of an ancestor who ate the wrong piece of fruit ... 🤦♂️
If the definition of Christian is Fascist, she is a Christian.
@@ManDuderGuy This isn't a biblical literalist thing. The entire point of christianity is accepting jesus christ as the incarnate diety who died for your sins and accepting him as your savior. There are tons of doctrinal differences, sure, but if you don't believe in that basic idea, then you aren't a christian.
I remember her saying that ‘we need to give Muslims the option to switch to Christianity to fight against Islamism’ - no surprise. She’s always been a mixed bag for me.
They shouldn't be given anything, because they shouldn't be here. Islamic migration will be the death of the West. Close the borders, and deport them.
I think shes calling for the help of one bully to fight another to restore order to society in her mind
I'm an ex-Muslim, but sometimes that woman just makes no sense to me.
@@wonderlife62best summary I’ve heard yet
A person who leaves islam for political purposes will accept another religion for political purposes too. The double standard of atheists here is that when it comes to her leaving islam, they associate politics with religion but when it comes to her accepting christianity they separate politics from religion. Such hypocritical atheists!😏
She definitely did it for political and financial reasons.
Edit: after seeing her interview, she might actually believe it. She makes it sound like she didn’t become a Christian, but she simply realized she was already a Christian because of her values. Also because she believes Christianity is the only way to be Islam.
A person who leaves islam for political purposes will accept another religion for political purposes too. The double standard of atheists here is that when it comes to her leaving islam, they associate politics with religion but when it comes to her accepting christianity they separate politics from religion. Such hypocritical atheists!😏
"She identifies as a Christian now." My response to this feels so petty. It's just: Okay. Have fun.
If only the people she associates with could have the same response to people like me, but that would mean finding another outgroup to blame all their problems on.
Another interesting point is how American Christians are so quick to treat select individuals’ conversions to Christianity as an obvious death nell for atheism, but just as quickly dismiss the thousands of deconversions *from* Christianity as irrelevant.
Because there are an equal number of conversions to Christianity. The current Christian population is 2.3 billion projected to reach 3.3 billion by 2070. If Christian deconversions were relevant this would not be the case.
Citation needed
@@IpSyCoisn’t Christianity on a decline
@@piercejones4355 No, the total Christian’s population is expected to grow from 2.3 billion to 3.3 billion by 2070.
@@IpSyCo ok can you show me the article you found it in I can’t find it
"She was never a real Christian." Just wait. This will be said when she decides it's pragmatic to make another change.
In this case, it will be justified, though, as her reasons for converting to christianity notably don't include anything about believing in god or accepting christ as her savior, instead it's about politics and attacking muslims.
She doesn't seem to be one (a "real Christian") now; nevermind later.
Many political christians go in a line from protestant to catholic because they think it's more western and traditional but since the current pope is ""woke"" by yheir standards they're recently switching to ortodoxy.
@@ratamacue0320 No, of course not. This will be said by the Christians that have now, opportunistically, embraced her.
A well-known Evangelical recently said in an interview that conservative Christianity has become just as secularized as the larger culture and they haven't even noticed it happening.
I never thought of Ayaan Hirsi Ali as a critic of all religions or as an "atheist" necessarily. I thought of her as a critic of Islam only so I'm not surprised by this and always felt that the right wing would be a good home for her.
I mean, it's not as if Islam occupies the left wing. I don't see how this move demonstrates that her allegiance has shifted from the left to the right.
My take on this, is that it is a political stunt to obtain more political clout, especially in regards to the right-wing Christian demographic, since many of their views on issues such as Islam, refugees and "wokeism" align with that of Ali.
Like Drew said in the video, she is Christan in the more political sense rather than as a genuine expression of personal beliefs that pertain to spirituality or the supernatural.
In other words, cynical right-wing grifting.
And the funny thing is that the people she's pandering to are the ones that consider such spirituality and beliefs to be called a Christian.
It's kinda like the Jordan Peterson thing, where he has to tiptoe around the issue of whether or not he actually believes in a god as depicted by classical theism (nothing indicates he does), so that his fans can project onto him their own beliefs.
More credibility to the idea that coalescing around a lack of belief doesn’t make a lot of sense. I don’t think I ever would have considered her and myself as part of the same movement.
Yeah< I always saw her as more anti-Islam rather than anti-religion-in-general.
@@christophercheck1590She came from a fundamentalist Islamic background, and was severely vaginally mutilated. Of course she's going to save most of her ammo on Islam, just like atheists harmed by Xtianity are gonna do the same with that religion. This really shouldn't surprise anyone.
I love how people make a big song and dance about an atheist becoming a theist, but a theist becoming an atheist has to hide due to shame etc.
Well, the best among us are the first to admit that people can be atheist for bad reasons.
@ladyaj7784 What is a bad reason to be an atheist? Do you meant morally bad, or bad as in a flawed argument for atheism? Either way, there isn't really a bad reason to be an atheist. If you don't believe in any religion you are an atheist, the reason for your lack of belief doesn't really matter.
It’s more common for a religious person to become an atheist, this is the normal progression, than for an athiest to become religious. It’s also more common for a left-winger to slowly become more right wing as they age, this is the standard progression, but is less common for a right-winger to become left wing. As such these are much bigger shockers.
@@ladyaj7784
There's never a bad reason to become an athiest
@@robfromvan
Nah...I'm 60 years old and an.a liberal. When I was younger I was more conservative.
02:25 "woke ideology" is what enables Ayaan Hirsi Ali to have a voice, rather than being treated as the property of a man.
You are 100% incorrect. Woke ideology has nothing to do with liberalism or freedom of speech. In fact many woke tenants go against liberal values and free expression as has been evidenced repeatedly the last 8 years.
As a previous atheist, then later an evangelical Christian for decades, my skeptical mindset finally got the best of me and steered me back to atheism once again. I doubt that she will find much room for healthy, wholesome skepticism in her new "faith".
Hell of a ride, isn't it? :)
@@seekthevisceralThat’s life for you!
That's an interesting path. I've known a few Christians who became atheists in their 30s. It was always an intellectual thing. I've also known quite a few people who have converted to Christianity as adults. Those people tended to be looking for a life change. Christianity is very misunderstood, in my opinion. Many people think being a religious Christian is adhering to a set of negative rules (Don't do this. Don't do that). That's not the message, though. The point of the Gospel is that God isn't judging people on the impossible to follow rules, he's making a way for flawed people to find meaning, purpose, and forgiveness despite their flaws. That's why atheism is for the perfect moral people and Christianity is for the rest of us.
@@seekthevisceral Yes, the worlds collided numerious times!
In reality she become right wing
There is something of a problem with reading too much about someone's political beliefs when they say they're an atheist. Ayn Rand was an atheist, and she was very much NOT progressive or left leaning in any way.
She was an atheist in a strange way it’s hard to imagine a conservative being today. She explicitly said she found Christ a pathetic figure symbolizing weakness and submissiveness, and that was antithetical to her whole “the strong and mighty deserve to run everything” philosophy.
She was also pro-choice, anti-monogamy, and hated Ronald Reagan. Conservatives like her economic views, but basically ignore everything else she said.
Religious = Political Conservative is an equation that can be made in the USA of today but it’s not something that can be automatically generalised to other times and places.
I am also atheist and very conservative. There is no correlation btw these two.
@@bibaolaitan5189 There is in the sense of being conservative means being in a political coalition with a lot of very religious Christians whose states political agenda claims to be motivated by Christianity.
I can never take anyone seriously when they use the term "woke" as a pejorative.
I can never take anyone who thinks cultural Marxism is a good thing seriously.
@@InciniumVGCAre you even aware that "cultural Marxism" is just a term for "cultural Bolshevism," used by WW2 German propaganda to smear Jews? Do you even know what "woke" originally meant while we're at it?
@@InciniumVGC what the hell does this even have to do with what OP said?
@@InciniumVGC "cultural Marxism is a good thing seriously."
Sure, corporations are Marxists... this is one of the dumbest conspiracy theories
Clown ass take. Nothing good about "wokism" when all they do is insist people change thoughts and language under the threat of being doxxed and having your career destroyed for difference of opinion. Not to mention the narrative they push on the issues they obsess over are as fictitious as what the christians push about their magic man in the sky. Their whole worldview is predicated upon victimhood. In what world can any sane person not see this as a negative thing? Definitely not the world you're living in pal.
I'm an ex muslim and now an atheist, and I'm just like you. I prefer to deal with a Muslim who shares the same values as me than deal with an atheist who is against the rights of minorities. The recent events that happens in Gaza have open my eyes to the fact that not everyone who leaves religion necessary becomes a humanist ( after seeing a lot of comments from ex Muslims who support Israeli terrorism against innocent people, I understood that)
I love Ayaan's criticism of Islam and her fighting against FGM, specially since it happened to me and I'm in a society that completely support it so i was happy to have a woman representing me but i disagree with her political views
I remember her for her critiscism of Islam as being valuable, but beyond that also as an obnoxious quarrelsome person, who wasn't very much missed in the Netherlands when she left for the States.
I think the same can be said about Sam Harris' take on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. What started as a valid and necessary criticism of Islam has devolved into plain old islamophobia. If you gave these two, or any moral philosopher the full context of the conflict but without mentioning what religion or what ethnicity any of the people involved belong to, you'd struggle to find anyone who would consider the Israeli response as the morally sound thing to do.
What Israel is doing is disgusting and seeing people I used to held to a higher moral standard fail to condemn it as such is very dissapointing. I'm an atheist and I've been marching in protests sorrounded by muslims, jews and christians alike. This is not a religious conflict at all, yet the other side of the aisle seem to love mislabeling it as such.
I do relate to what you say as an ex muslim and now atheist myself. People often assume that because I left Islam then it would be evident for m to hate anything Islam related; this is NOT true, and I find that it deems my decision to leave Islam as emotional, again NOT true, I only left Islam because the whole concept of monotheistic religions doesn't seem rational to me, and this reasoning would prevent me from joining any other religion.
Emotional fueled decision to leave Islam will lead you to support the genocide of Palestinians.
It looks like Ayaan is joining Christianity as a shield against Islam which she deeply resents and fears.
I offer my condolences for your vagina. That poor organ, brutally mutilated.
It is one of the worst things humans do to each other based on religion.
I hope you are doing good now.
Ayan is a smart woman, she was a politician before and she sees Christianity as a political tool. And it's hard to argue with irrational people purely based on facts as they don't care about facts, that's why they reach fanatical levels of religiosity.
So she’s about as Christian as Trump.
Maybe she has political ambitions (since most in US congress are christian). If that is not the case than it is a rejection of atheism...being to soft to counter islam which is her main theme. btw looking at the way atheists respond to Ali switching to christianity that is rather irrational. Take a look at yourself first before you judge others dude.
I love it when people attempt to assign judgment as if you're in another person's heart.
They're simply "better" people: more intelligent, more enlightened. If they can't touch it, taste it, handle it, it does not exist.@@aclaylambisabirdman6324
Glad to know that I have found the source of rationality, logic, and facts. Thank you @NidzShah-ps6kr
Wow, a PragerU conservative is now a Christian, I am absolutely SHOCKED to my bones...
Dennis Prager is Jewish...
@@InciniumVGC He's also a neo-nazi. What's your point?
I loved her first book. I was glued to every page and could not put it down until I was done. Over the years, she faded into the back of our minds. This was most likely the same across the globe. This was a problem for her but mostly, her wallet. Stating that she is now a Christian, will help her wallet.
It reminds me of a person who once created a anti-rightwing website based on outrageously false claims of the right. When liberals, progressives and the entire left didn't fall for his BS, he switched to creating a anti-leftwing platform creating fake stories and outrageous claims. His income increased from nearly nothing to $30,000.00 a month. Because he now knows the right will fall for anything. She knows this too.
Do you know the name of the person and/or website?
Sounds like a politician, getting rich by lying seems to be their forte.
@virginiarogers9391 No. It's been about 8 years since I read the article, and I don't remember who it was. Sorry.
I may be mistaken but I think Candice Owens did something similar.
Oh, I love this one; this actually says more about you than her.
I remember buying End of Faith by Sam Harris, in the began enjoying the book, but when he supported torture of prisoners in Guantanamo Bay, all I could do was just cringe. I see myself more aligned with a religious person who agrees with Amnesty International than an atheist who doesn’t.
Harris puts on a facade of reasonableness which often sails disingenuously into some pretty wild defenses for indefensible/ inhumane actions. His arguments are ultimately unsound and not very well put together. I sort of found this in a lot of the 2010s “new atheists” who kinda leaned into right wing western exceptionalism, and even casually dip into actual racism and Ayaan fit that bill pre “conversion” as well. Being on Prager U should be a red flag for anyone, Christian or No. Anyone who subscribes to basic reason wouldn’t shill for those people. The “anti-woke” stuff is ridiculous too. And is used flexibly to describe any social change these people don’t like at the time. I say all this as someone who went to see Dawkins in person and had multiple books by the horsemen. They always had a somewhat twisted world view that I don’t appreciate and it doesn’t surprise me that one of their peers is saying and doing all of what she is.
Sam Harris is now officially on my shit list. I agree with you on aligning with the religious if they are anti-torture.
Seems as though u hating an aethiest for arriving at the same destination a Christian would...
I wonder what makes you believe that the rest of atheists (SH excluded) would be more prone to support torture than Christians...
Also, secularism is usually scary and full of unkonwns to people who were raised with religion deeply ingrained into them. People have gone years, perhaps even decades in secular life before realizing that they were still holding onto perceptions they came to only for religious reasons (or perceptions they came to because of personal bias which were then reinforced only by religion or traditional culture tied to religion). It is often difficult to transition from assurance of an eternal reward to seeking one's own meaning, purpose and motivation in life. For this last problem, I'd like to share my perspective in case it can help anyone, if you've ever found someone other than yourself in this world who you truly love then I'm confident you can attest to the following:
If you love the joy and wellbeing of someone other than yourself, you are experiencing paradise. That is the best, most fulfilling feeling a person can experience and if there is any afterlife at all then you can also experience paradise in that afterlife the same way it is experienced in this life. There is no gatekeeper, mortal or eternal, who can keep you from paradise. This does not mean you will not suffer, suffering is unavoidable, but you can experience paradise even while suffering, I've seen it and I've experienced it.
I've said all this before but it just occurred to me to say: Just think how terrible god would have to be for any contradiction of this to be true.
It’s been four years since I deconverted from the hardline and fundamentalist interpretation of Catholicism I followed for several years and that deconversion was nothing short of traumatic (but also liberating) for me, before although I was miserable in many ways at least I had a good idea of what my life was supposed to be for and what I had to do but when that faith with prepackaged answers finally fell apart I was so depressed that I nearly tried to end it all because it felt like I had nothing left to live for.
So you’re right, removing the religious framework of living can be a very scary experience for many and in some ways I feel like leaving Christianity as a whole cost me nearly everything I had (and I’m still recovering from the time I was really aimless in life) but I felt I had no choice but to keep going for the sake of my integrity and I don’t regret it, however those experiences are also why I feel sorry for many of the people I left behind (alongside many people still in in other fundamentalist movements) because if they end up leaving as well they may end up losing more than I did but this woman in particular comes across as a grifter like so many others on the right so I don’t extend that sympathy to her.
Therapy has really helped so far and so many other apostates may need it and I started taking meds because my depression was getting out of hand more recently and I feel like I’ve been given a second chance at life now, I’ve come to realize that it’s the small things that matter the most (in contrast to these grand cosmic narratives so many of us were raised with) so many of the things you mentioned resonate with me.
Your definition of paradise sounds more like a joyful or meaningful experience, or perhaps fulfillment of an obligation or duty, and I attest that you are worshiping at the altar of 'the other" if that is where you derive transcendent meaningful experience. A good cure for solipsism and selfishness for sure, but pales in comparison to religious notions of paradise.
I would add that secularism is scary for me and I wasn't raised with religion deeply ingrained within me at all. Nietzsche's thoughts on the Death of God are apropos. The problem of evil is not solved by worshiping the other and if that is taken to extremes it can damage the self (and even the other you are worshiping.) I would recommend a good book, "The Righteous Mind" by Jonathan Haidt.
@@zarbins First of all, I don't worship anything or anyone and I can't help getting the impression that religious thinking was ingrained in you if you truly insist that's what my perspective is, even if it was not your family but the world we live in that ingrained that perspective in you. Secondly, why bring up the problem of evil? I didn't bring up any reference to the problem of evil in my initial comment. From a non-religious perspective, the problem of evil is just that I don't like evil but it still exists. The reason the problem of evil is brought up from a secular perspective when arguing against religion is that a god who allows evil is either not all good or not all powerful.
I realize that not everyone can realistically find someone else who's joy they genuinely love and that doesn't mean they can't have the ultimate joy and fulfillment of life, it is equally valid to love your own joy and this should be prioritized alongside loving the joy of others one loves. In fact, loving the joy of others is ultimately for the purpose of providing joy to one's self, there is no motivation that isn't self centered - if something motivates a person then the center of that motivation has to be a benefit to one's self but if one finds another person who's joy they love (which is the only definition I can assign to actually loving someone) their joy will inevitably cause joy in the one who loves them and, regardless of how you explain it (perhaps by the fact that it is rarer than love for one's self) the joy that comes from this is special and, to me, more meaningful than just loving myself and no one else. It's not a matter of duty, I don't hold myself to a requirement to love others, I just respond to my love for others by enjoying their joy. Speaking from my own personal experience, as I did in my initial comment, there is no joy a person can experience which exceeds the joy of loving someone else's joy even if loving one's own joy selfishly is equal to it.
I'd also like to make another statement for the sake of clarity: I don't consider selfishness and self centeredness to be the same thing, nor is selfishness always evil. Every motivation is self centered or it wouldn't be a motivation. Even if I love someone so that my simple awareness of their joy makes me happy without any need to be owed anything, or credited with their joy (by others or myself) to want to make them happy, my motivation to make them happy is centered around MY joy. There's no escaping that, but you can see how this motivation differs from making the entire motivation only involve myself. If I do kind things for others only to be owed something or to be praised, that certainly provides me a source of joy but it's not as meaningful as genuinely loving someone else's joy and such motivation could just as easily motivate me to use others as a scapegoat or take credit for the work of others.
Now, I'd like to emphasize also that selfishness is not always harmful. Just as the easiest example (but certainly not the only example): If someone lives alone in the wilderness, far from anyone else so there is no perceptible affect their actions could have on others, everything they do (other than kindness they show to other life forms of course) is just for there self without consideration of others. These selfish motives are not wrong, they're not intended harm at all. One can certainly argue that morality is subjective but I would argue that morality can be objectively defined and what is subjective is whether it is good to be moral. Granted there is a grey area as to where to draw a certain line in my definition of morality, amorality and immorality but the concepts seem objective to me.
If you ask me, morality is the motivation to cause good in the life of anyone (human or not), immorality is prioritization of one's own relatively trivial benefit over any aversion to causing relatively severe harm to anyone else (this is where the grey area comes in - what is trivial and what is severe is somewhat ambiguous) and amorality is following instincts without a concept of harming others.
Lastly, I'd like to ask you what paradise could possibly be to you if not perfectly explained as the most joyful and most meaningful experience one could have. How do you define paradise in the context of a religious notion?
@@Where_is_Waldo Your definition of paradise is, "If you love the joy and wellbeing of someone other than yourself," perhaps I should have said it 'sounds' like you worship at the altar of the other. You claim to worship no one but are dependent on the joy and well-being of another to grant you an experience of love, and thus welcome you through the gates of paradise as if they were a Beatrice from Dante's divine comedy.
I mentioned the problem of evil somewhat tongue and cheek in reference to, "just think how terrible god would have to be for any contradiction of this to be true." How could an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient God allow for another 'terrible' definition of paradise to exist... I'm being a bit playful here, but would like to reconcile this point with you because if I had to define what God is it would be something like "Love" or the capacity to love, or the transcendent experience of love, so perhaps we are not too far apart from each other and you are merely giving a specific example of love when found/experienced through the joy and wellbeing of another.
Noted your points for clarity. Your definition of morality seems somewhat Utilitarian? A calculus between net benefit of goodness to another vs. possible selfish motivation?
How I define paradise in religious terms is irrelevant but you likely known the standard definitions, "In Christianity, paradise is pictured as a place of rest and refreshment in which the righteous dead enjoy the glorious presence of God. In its view of the heavenly afterlife, Islam views paradise as a pleasure garden in which the blessed experience the greatest sensual and spiritual happiness. etc.."
I'm not worth such a lengthy reply but appreciate the engagement. Have a good week my friend, and I hope you find Waldo.
@@zarbins I am not "dependent on the joy and well-being of another to grant (me) an experience of love". My love does not depend on another's joy or wellbeing, my love for another person means that I love their joy and wellbeing or, to put it another way, I hate the displeasure and detriment of those I love. What I said is that rejoicing in the joy and wellbeing of those I love IS paradise - it is what defines the greatest experience. If their is an eternal paradise after death, the ultimate joy and the ultimate fulfillment is what would make it paradise. There is no gatekeeper, in this life or any other, that can take away paradise so long as your mind exists and someone you love is happy.
When I said "Just think how terrible god would have to be for any contradiction of this to be true." I was referring to a contradiction of the notion that paradise is defined by the experience of an ultimate joy and ultimate fulfillment that is not dependent on following any rule or rules that someone made for us to follow even if the only rule is to believe in and revere a god and/or a contradiction of the notion that paradise can be experienced in this, the only life we know we have and/or a contradiction of the notion that everyone who truly loves someone can attain the greatest joy and fulfillment through their love.
My definition of morality is a matter of motivation. Your motivation is what defines who you are in any given scenario. You can not, in any sense, decide with absolute certainty what the net helpful or harmful results of your efforts will be but, as much as you can decide anything, you can decide what you want to do. It can be hard to judge what others want to do so I try to hesitate to judge others but people often make their intentions reasonably clear. Even so, I try to always second guess myself on any judgements I make about others since I know I can never be absolutely certain. For me, judging my perception of the morality of others is mostly a matter of avoiding people who will try to cause harm and judging my own morality is a matter of managing my instincts to best suit the central motivations that define who I am.
Solid response video whether scripted or not. Keep up the great job.
This sort of flipflopping of ideologies and labels happens constantly and with people on every side of any polarizing position. I don't ever see it as significant, as arguments and reason stand on their own, not just because someone I enjoy watching is espousing these things.
It's a shame to give more fodder to the extremists, but at the end of the day there was no shortage of that anyway.
Would you really characterize a religious conversion as “flipflopping of ideologies and labels”? Makes it sound insignificant. Someone changing their mind between biden or trump, between hobbes or locke, between lenin or mao, none of those decisions implicates the fate of your immortal soul.
The money on the religious/conservative side is huge. Money makes the world go around. Maybe she wants a nice apartment in New York.
“Reality is not easy, but all this make-believe doesn't make it easier.”
Ayaan Hirsi Ali
She must be trolling us now.
Secularism has been extremely satisfying for me despite not having superficial answers to existential questions that rob me of a sense of self and identity. I’m sorry she hasn’t felt that and therefore adopts Iron Age barbarism in its place.
Yeah lets adopt modernity and 21st century barbarism instead and lets see how long that'll last ah? Btw what is barbaric about loving ones enemy and caring for the poor, and self-sacrifice tho 💀?
Secularism is just a fraud version of Christianity, that's why I am converting rather than becoming a Secular Atheist from Hinduism.
@@Stolen_entertainment, try reading the rest of the Bible, Quran, etc. You'll find plenty of barbarism there. The core ideas of Jesus are fine (though far from ground breaking), but that's not what most Christians are applying on their day to day.
@@Stolen_entertainment Are you going to pretend that Christianity only has "good" teachings? Will you acknowledge the immoral teachings too?
The Prager U appearance is a dead giveaway. Let's face it folks, US Christianity is evolving into less of "Whatever Church of Catholicism/Protestant/Evangelical/LDS, etc." and more into "The Church of Fox News/The Wire/Newsmax/Prager U".
Good video! I haven’t heard of the use of Christianity as a purely political label quite so clearly before. This is a good case study for it.
Trump was slightly more subtle. 😂
Ayaan Hirsi Ali: _"Tolerance of intolerance is cowardice."_
Also Ayaan: _"We can't fight woke ideology if we can't defend the civilisation that it is determined to destroy."_ (2:30)
These are not mutually exclusive ideas and the point you are attempting to make does not land. Try harder or perhaps, in your parlance, do better.
@@zarbins It does land, when you consider that _"woke ideology"_ is just a narrative of the right-wing to propagate their own intolerance & wilful ignorance.
@@zarbins You can't "fight woke ideology" without tolerating intolerance, at the very least, or in most cases engaging in it directly.
@@Pushing_Pixels I'm not sure I follow. Many people are intolerant from across the political spectrum so perhaps there does need to be some capacity for tolerating intolerance but I don't think that is what you're getting at.
What I found the funniest is the bit where she says that "she still learns a lot about christianity every sunday at her church" XD what better way is there to admit that she has no clue what the religion is actually about
Thanks for your balanced and considered approach to these challenging issues. Keep up the good work😊
new background lighting looks really clean. loving the higher saturation and contrast!
I remember Penn Jillette doing a skit about being converted to a believer, but then ends up saying something like how much money and fame he could've had if that were true. 😂
I think it was either in an episode of "B*ullshit!" or "Big Think".
As soon as she did a video for Prager, you knew she had lost her way.
Interesting analysis, Drew.
If you wouldn't have mentioned this was unscripted, I think I wouldn't have noticed. Keep up the good work 👍🏻👍🏻
Ali's transition from Islam to atheism, and ultimately to Christianity, was influenced by a few factors. She initially rejected Islam in response to the extremism exemplified by the 9/11 attacks, finding solace in atheism after being influenced by Bertrand Russell's critiques of religion. Her experience with the Muslim Brotherhood, which espoused a strict form of Islam, contributed to her disillusionment. However, she later found atheism inadequate in providing spiritual solace and a sense of life's purpose, leading her to embrace Christianity. She sees Christianity as offering a unifying narrative essential for upholding the values and traditions of Western civilization, contrasting it with the limitations of secular approaches in addressing global and existential challenges.
She says and I quote "we can’t fight off these formidable forces unless we can answer the question: what is it that unites us? The response that “God is dead!” seems insufficient."
She proves the Bertrand was right. her conversion was due to fear.
She then said "I ultimately found life without any spiritual solace unendurable - indeed very nearly self-destructive. Atheism failed to answer a simple question: what is the meaning and purpose of life?"
That means she believed atheism entailed nihilism which is false. She assumes meaning and purpose must be top down, instead of bottom up. So, it's really the moral case for God that motivated her transition.
She says "We can’t withstand China, Russia and Iran if we can’t explain to our populations why it matters that we do. We can’t fight woke ideology if we can’t defend the civilization that it is determined to destroy. And we can’t counter Islamism with purely secular tools." She has even proclaimed that Holland's Argument in "Dominion" is somehow convincing or a reason to hold on to Christianity.
She is just plainly wrong on this one and she seems to believe that Atheism is more than just a proposition on the existence of God. It's sad to see another person lost to delusion and she is going to church on Sundays to further fall into the trap of sophistry.
From a consistently materialist point of view, secular humanism is no more "correct" than any religion. There is no such thing as "good" and "evil" or "human rights" in nature. Believing in these things is no more logical than believing in angels. It's funny that many people who call themselves freethinkers and rationalists think otherwise.
Also, the question about the meaning of life is important. The advantages and benefits that religion provides by providing a strong, collective, external purpose for existence are visible even from a purely Darwinian perspective: highly secularized societies are becoming increasingly atomized, sinking into empty hedonism and, as a consequence, crumbling demographically, religious societies are not.
@@dariuszgaat5771 These are non-sequiturs. Humanism doesn't claim it is correct, it is simply a way to live with each other. I am a moral anti-realist so it's not simply that good and evil or human rights don't exist in nature, they simply are not objective existing things. They are all events within society. We define what is good and evil and we decide what rights we impose on others.
The question of the meaning of life is not inherently important simply because it is important to some or most. I see no advantage to religion, we need to understand that although we are atomized because we are individuals, we can still act in ways that benefit both society and ourselves. So your appeal to consequences is based on a false slippery slope.
@@CMVMic "Humanism doesn't claim it is correct, it is simply a way to live with each other."
Of course claim. Secular humanists/left liberals, and in the past Marxists, behaved and still behave as if their worldview and moral system was the only appropriate, universal and "default" one for man. This is an obvious lie. These worldviews were not somehow rooted in human nature. They were created at a specific historical moment on the basis of Christian philosophy; it is basically a "Christianity without God". Human rights play the role of God.
However, if one takes the trouble to carefully study the history of human ideas over the centuries, one will quickly realize that the basic moral values of almost all human societies have differed significantly from what humanists propagate. And that there is no "universal" ethical system.
The fact that the idea of human rights has spread so widely around the world is solely due to the economic and military power of Europe and its expansion to other continents, ironically so vehemently condemned today by secular humanists as "colonialism".
However, in my opinion, from a materialist point of view, there is no good reason for humanists to usurp the role of moral oracles, because their ideas are not, as they admit, written somewhere in nature, but are simply ideas - products of minds long dead philosophers from Europe.
"The question of the meaning of life is not inherently important simply because it is important to some or most. I see no advantage to religion"
Well, that's just your own subjective opinion. Yuval Hoah Harari believes that one of the reasons for the evolutionary success of Homo sapiens was the ability to create "imagined realities" in their minds, and religions are among the strongest and most convincing. They enable cooperation between millions of unrelated and unknown people and give them a common purpose for existence.
From a purely materialistic point of view, it is very difficult to find any objective measure of what is "good" for society, but it may be Darwinian natural selection. From this point of view, good is what makes a given population prosper and grow, or at least remain at the same level. And from the point of view of this selection, atheistic worldviews are a dead end. As all statistical research shows, highly secularized ones are simply dying out. Probably because they cannot give their users the strong, collective sense of existence that religions provide.
She has a belief in million dollar payouts.
You're pissed huh
@@im-not-alone5587pissed about what?
@@ericcraig3875 about the fact that she says she is christian
@im-not-alone5587 why does that matter. I haven't heard about her for like 15 years. I listened to her speak maybe a dozen times and wasn't impressed. She was good for helping people leaving islam I guess. I didn't even know she was an atheist until this video. I wouldn't even place her in the top 100 for the movement. The horseman are defunct now anyway. Dawkins is an idiot on everything besides science and has no debate ability. Hitchens is dead but leaves amazing work, but he sucked at debate too. Den is boring. Sam is fantastic, but not out there in public much. He is loaded and happy. There are way better Atheists leading human cognitive evolution.
I remember Ayaan well from her time living in the Netherlands and being a Dutch politician, this woman is sickening.
Real?
@@greatexpectations6577
Very real.
She fled our country in shame after it became clear she had LIED about almost everything when entering the Netherlands, and kept on lying in order to play the victim she claimed to be.
I do like this unscripted video! Your poise and clarity are so admirable. What a pro!
She once believed in a religion based on the mythology of the ancient Hebrews.
She now believes in a religion based on the mythology of the ancient Hebrews.
At least now she is on the same payroll as Jordan Peterson, Douglas Murray and Tom Holland. She will be able to retire comfortably.
I really appreciated your comments. I guess a YT comment is not the best place to pour out my soul, but where I was raised, Christians were "good" in that they cared about social inequality. I happened to be in Saskatchewan, where a Baptist minister became premier and introduced the first-ever social medical insurance scheme, dubbed "medicare." My mother, who was a parigon of tolerance, threw an anti-medicare campaigner out on his ear. I had never experienced her anger before. Yet she professes to be a Christian. I got over the Christianity thing, but she was a good person, and so was Tommy Douglas, the person to introduced Medicare to North America.
I do agree with you - that one's behavior and political goals are more important to me than their religious beliefs (or political philosophy).
I so agree with you about the labels thing. When I lost my faith, I tried so hard to find a label that would fit me, but in the end it was like trying on clothes to see if I like the fit, but it never works. There is still a lot I like about Jesus, but even if I believe 80% the same things as Christians do, I'm not a real Christian unless I believe 100% of what they believe. Never mind that there are 30 thousand denominations each with their own criteria. Ugh 😒. These days I feel like I'm equal parts mystic and skeptic. So I feel doomed to be socially homeless if I'm trying to fit in with a label.
You can come to my house and we'll be socially homeless together.
I don't like labels. I want people to look a little deeper.
No label fits because everyone is a unique individual. Putting yourself in a box designed by someone else isn't going to lead you to happiness or wisdom.
"Wokeism" is a very weak term. In 2023, it means "Whatever Conservatives don't like."
If you want to get into the etymology of the term, it meant something, something like being awake to the reality of structural, indemic racism in the US. That broadened to other marginalized "communities" of minorities. Conservatives picked up the term and made it pejorative.
Damn, always sucks to see people turn to a right-wing grift to raise their status.
Or she was pushed out of the left since they are pro muslim and Islam abused her in her youth
Its unfortunately the natural end point for anyone that wants to combat the religiofacist influences of Islam as the political left has no appetite for it
Maybe it's because I was too young in those days, but I've literally never seen her before. So even if this was something to care about, it wouldn't have a huge impact because she's frankly not as impactful as some people seem to imply
An atheist is a person who rejects religion due to lack of or conflicting evidence, not someone who rejects it because they don't like it.
I have always made a distinction between Christian and Churchist. A Christian studies the teachings of Christ and tries to emulate them. A Chruchist joins and organization and follows their teachings, no matter how awful or immoral. I can count the Christians I have known without taking my shoes off. The Churhists are legion.
It looks like Ayaan Hirsi Ali was a Chruchist when she identified as an Atheist. Now she has found a more fashionable wardrobe and has embraced classical Churchism.
Well they are the same stop pretending christuans have some great soul
If Churchism is so widespread, why isn't actual Christianity any better? Mental gymnastics aside, you're just riffing off the same old atheists are immoral trope.
It’s interesting though how many Christians who claim to not be into church get really nasty when I say I’m not Christian. I think there’s definitely still some pretty harmful stuff in the Bible. Stuff that gives some of these people these controlling and manipulative ideas. Even Jesus said to love God and himself before your spouse and your family, which definitely gives off some cult like mentality.
@@raghavnamasivayam8706 completely agree! I’ve gotten some nasty pushback from people who pretend to be chill and don’t go to church and all that. It’ll still always be hilarious to me when Christians call other Christians not Christian.
A lot of groups (religious or political) seem to make a big deal out of who joins their side and who leaves their opposition as if it's a case for why they're right, but they don't really consider the reasons for why people switch and are dismissive of when people leave their side
Yes. Like for example - "Why can't an atheist fight against islam and be part of the left?"
That would be a good question.
Atheists make a big deal out of people who leave their faith all the time. It's a tribal instinct that we all share.
Treating atheism as a political position is going to give you the wrong impression of a lot of people. That's a way too make yourself more comfortable with your chosen group, assuming they're like yourself, but the reality is more varied than you give credit to and stereotypes like that will only make advancing a common cause more difficult.
I may be wrong, but I think what he is referring to when he describes atheism as a political position isn't the politics of atheists as a whole or any particular atheist. It is the assumptions that religious people make about an individuals politics when they identify themselves as an atheist. Religious people associate being an atheist with being politically liberal/left, whether that is accurate or not. The issue (in America at least) is that being an atheist is read as being liberal by the majority of people, and is therefore treated as synonymous with being so.
TLDR: Atheism is a political position because of the assumptions non-atheists make about the politics of atheists, not because the atheists themselves think it is a political stance.
@pearcat08 watch again starting at 7:11. He's directly starting that he views it as a political position to the extent that he intentionally chooses the label as a political act.
At the end of the day we all agree that labels are not definitions, but that's my point. Taking the label atheist and using that as a political indicator is just as silly as assigning political positions to theists. That's stereotyping and gets in the way of understanding each other. Atheism isn't political unless you make it so and doing that by default defaults you to wrong conclusions much of the time.
I think what shes saying isnt particularly unreasonable so long as you share a few, admittedly difficult to share presuppositions. Treating religion in this sense as a technology to push her views because religion permiates minds more feverishly than secular belief is fairly logical. Obviously points about wokeism being a plague and global warming being fake (though im not sure this is her exact stance) are.. less reasonable from my perspective, but if we accept those implicitly to get into her mindset it makes decent sense.
I agree with what you're saying about her using religion as a technology. I'm not capable of reading her mind, but this seems most like a strategic position for her to take imo.
Anyway, the major reason that I deconverted was because of my opposition to fundamentalism of all types so I try very hard not engage in that kind of thought process as an atheist.
Insightful comment, OP. Christianity is an insanely successful meme and is meant to be easy to spread. I do wonder whether she’s going to speak more on the supernatural elements of the faith like the afterlife and divine intervention, which I think are some of the biggest assets to Christianity’s ability to spread.
@@GeneticallyModifiedSkepticAlways interesting to me when religious folk concentrate more on the social efficacy of religion as opposed to it's objective truth.
While I agree, does that mean that she's Christian?
I know I'm perilously close to commiting the No True Scotsman fallacy, but can someone be a Christian without asserting that Jesus is, at the very least, a person capable of wielding divine powers?
I feel like, were I still a Christian, I wouldn't accept her calling herself as such due to her lack of faith, which is a core virtue of abrahamic religions.
Well, imagine I wanted to oppose islam and all the harm it brings. Paradoxically, the (liberal ?) left is currently not the place for me, is it.
An islamophobe like me would pretty much have to join the right.
Though converting to christianity would be a bit much for me...
I find interesting that most of those "new atheists" of old actually seem today much more politically aligned with the religious conservatives than any socially progressive current. Really goes to show that "atheism" in itself, with no qualifiers, is of pretty much no significance. Someone may naturally become an atheist due to their pursuits regarding Ethics, logical reasoning, free thought and skepticism and so on, but the label itself is empty of moral and ethical content.
If modern day social progressives act like the religious right of the 1980s then yeah those atheist will not side with them. They are mostly liberals not leftist
I’ve seen a few links in my social media feeds that reference her, and I’m like “Who?” I don’t think we should care, especially since we don’t have to hang onto the words of what well-known atheists say. It’s not them that we should be concerned about, but rather reasons why we should or should not believe in and adhere to religions.
Also, I have a similar reason to yours for calling myself an atheist. I think that agnostic does not communicate the right idea as to my beliefs-it seems to convey the idea that I’m searching for the divine or at least waiting to see it. Agnostic Atheist is a bit long for my tastes, and so I go with Athiest to easily convey that I really dont buy the idea that there are gods, and that my personal feelings on religion are. “No thanks, I’ll pass, and I won’t go out of my way to support religious institutions .”
I wouldn't have noticed that it's unscripted if you hadn't announced it at the start. I like that you remind people that real life actions are much more important than (self ascribed) labels and things like this don't really matter all that much.
I don't know who she is in her heart of hearts, but from my perspective it seems like she could have been a valuable ally if the more liberal media were so afraid of any muslim criticism. She was pushed into the arms of the right conservative moment and leaned into it more and more to find acceptance. She might have been a loss for the atheist movement, but that loss happened years ago now, and this article makes no difference
She's know different from sam Harris in my opinion but at least sam harris.caught on to the charade of the right Wing...the right Wing only entertained him cause of his anti Islam beliefs but once he expressed beliefs opposed to Christianity they turned on him
She's been a conservative basically since she entered the scene.
"Why I'm now a dingdong" is more like the truth.
As long as other atheists have a shred of intellectual integrity when it comes to their employers I think this is a pretty rare case.
When I first became an atheist about 10 years ago, the label of atheism was everything to me because I was so angry at my former religion for lying to me. Now, it only matters whether you're a good person or not. Sam Harris is much less appealing to me because of his politics and the people he identifies with. I'm much more in line with Mehdi Hasan now, despite the fact that he's a Muslim.
I always figured that being woke meant one had awaken to the understanding that there is injustice in the world and that we need to fight it. I'm generally in favor of being woke with the exception of people become so passionate about the fight for justice that they want to turn everything into a battle. In a way that can remind me of the worst aspects of fundamentalist religion.
@darwinskeeper421 That was the original meaning of woke it comes from Black American slang. The Right has co-opted the word as a pejorative for anything they don’t like or agree with.
No one needed to be 'awoken' or 'woke' to realize there is injustice in the world and that it needs to be fought, this has been going on for thousands of years. A better original definition would be that those oriented towards social justice are "alert to racial prejudice and discrimination" however, since they have adopted a post-modernist lens of racism they find it in all aspects of society and every individual. Race and racial dynamics are how they see the world in a sort of Foucault-ian power struggle and if that is the lens you view the world through you'll find it everywhere.
While I agree the right has co-opted the word; unfortunately, and diluted its meaning the same thing was done years before by the left with terms like racist, Nazi, fascism, 'far-right', SA, etc... being used so casually and being re-defined annually that those terms have also lost much of their meaning. It's a cultural game now that both sides are playing against each other, orchestrated by the rich and intellectual elite to keep themselves in power while we fight amongst ourselves out of pettiness and an inability to articulate a unifying vision.
@tevbuff takes the easy way out by defining woke as anything "the right doesn't like" instead of contending with serious definitions of woke.
I'll add some of the more serious definitions below:
1) “Woke” is political correctness on steroids. It's government and corporate enforced authoritarian political correctness. As sometimes expressed by de-platforming or cancel culture.
2) A state of awareness that allows one to find injustice in everything except their own behavior. That all of society is currently and intentionally structured to oppress (e.g. racial , sexual , class , able-body, beauty oppressions.) That any gaps in achievement between large groups is due to said oppressions and that equity (equality of outcome) is the answer.
3) Woke is a colloquial term for critical social justice, which is a term that encompasses all critical theories. A critical theory is an application of postmodernism and Hegelian dialectics (thinking economic Marxism - dialectical materialism) but to social issues.
4) Woke is used more often now to term someone hypocritical who acts 'enlightened' despite the fact that they are extremely close-minded and are unable to accept other people's criticism or differing perspective. Especially considering the existence of echo chamber(media) that helped them to find other like-minded individuals, thus, further solidifying their 'progressive' opinion when in fact they are virtue signaling, morally self-righteous, self-aggrandizing authoritarian lefties that eschew (disregard) traditional enlightenment and liberal values.
5) “woke” is the grammaticality incorrect abuse of the word awake. It's meaning is as stupid as the misuse of the word. The people who spew the word are far from being awake or enlightened. They display all of the bigoted traits they claim to hate. They intimidate, ridicule or extort anyone who doesn't agree with them or bow down to their primal demands.
I'll end with a clear example of the bigotry and prejudice enabled by wokeness. I am sure everyone has read Ibram X Kendi's book on antiracism by this point. Therein he takes a polarizing, if not Manichean view, on the positions one must hold regarding racism. Either you are racist or anti-racist. The devil is in the details though as to be an anti-racist one must actively discriminate; as Kendi says, "The only remedy to racist discrimination is antiracist discrimination." Kendi attempts to sidestep the contradiction here that "the only way to fight racism is by being racist" by redefining the word racism and essentially stating you cannot be racist to certain groups of people, i'll let you figure out what group that is. The hypocrisy is so palpable though, and the phraseology so damaging, that he had to remove it from his latest edition of the book. This is good example of why so many center-left, independent, and on the right deride "wokeness."
i enjoyed this unscripted video! it was shorter, but easier to follow along with and felt more natural to listen to. would love more unscripted content in the future!
My initial impulse was to be glad that she didn't represent atheism, but I'm not entirely convinced any of the "Four Horseman" have necessarily aged well. (I'd be curious to see if others think differently)
Now, it feels more like the movement they represent is a bit of mainstream atheism's awkward puberty stage. The potential for so many great things, propelling us into the next stage of life, but some parts still make you cringe.
I haven't heard anything particularly out there about Sam Harris but I don't follow him anymore. He seems like the most boring of the four horseman and anytime I click anything of his it's like listening to absolutely nothing for 30+ minutes. I don't know if he aged poorly so much as he just kind of got stuck and left behind somewhere. Though I haven't heard about Ayaan in years either so maybe Sam will pop up and declare he is actually Buddhist and not secular Buddhist anymore or something.
@@tiryaclearsong421 Yeah, Ayaan is the most recent example.
But Richard Dawkins has been the big one. He's been putting out a lot of anti-trans rhetoric using his background as a Biologist to give him authority.
He's hosted anti-trans authors and anti-trans activists on his podcast and claims that to accept trans people is to deny reality. He's astounded by this because his goal as an atheist activist is to help the public move away from reality-denying nonsense and now so many atheists are falling for it.
He's a prime example of the hero who lived long enough to become a villain. He has so many connections to currently practicing biologists and he could absolutely have a conversation with some highly appraised biologist who holds a different position on him about trans issues.
He could have a conversation about that, ask follow up questions, deconstruct the assumptions he believes underlies "trans ideology" and then even if he still disagrees, could leave his audience with something to think about.
But instead, he invites pundits (who are not biologists) to help him dunk on trans people and bitch about atheists who fall for "wokeism". Lazy. Reckless. Disgusting.
I actually understand why Ayyan made this move. I'm no fan of her as she's always appeared pretty mercenary. But that aside, I know where she's coming from, because I think many of us who left a religion, hit a wall at some point. You see religion is so sure of itself. It promises ultimate meaning, certainty and comfort. It solves humanity's existential crisis. Things are black and white, good and evil. Unfortunately as Albert Camus pointed out, life is absurd. The world is not black and white and reason alone cannot provide objective meaning. Any meaning derived by reason alone is subjective and open to doubt and counter perspective. As for religion - you can't argue with that - "God said it." It's reassuringly immovable. Things are as God ordained and this is how it must be for all time. For some of us, leaving our religion places us in an uncomfortable position. Firstly we no longer have that crutch we used for so long and have to walk on our own. That can be enormously difficult and some might find they just can't cope. Secondly, countering religious certainty with subjectivity can be a daunting task. As Bertrand Russell said "Fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts." There is a temptation for many to commit "philosophical suicide" as Camus put it. To perform a "leap of faith." To suspend rationality and instead claim knowledge or believe things that go beyond the limits of rationality. If for nothing else - as in Ayyan's case - as a bulwark against another religion and/or the decline of the "West" as she sees it. However, while I understand this temptation, its not one I could ever give in to it. Because the meaning it gives to life is an illusion. Plus any advantage it might give us over our perceived "enemies" would come at the expense of living a lie and being false to one's own self.
Your comments never fail to make my day. Thank you for your insight as always, Hassan!
While I agree with most of what you said I do feel its important to point out woke is and continues to be a thing entirely separate from progressivism. It is by all means a good thing to stick up for those different from yourself, but even this can take bad turns, when you don't ask how they want to be represented, and try to play the hero, and ultimately piss off more people than you help bring to their cause. And I am happy things like the Panderverse from South Park are taking that on. I do not in anyway think your content is woke, you maintain the ideals of progressivism, because you always are willing to give fair criticism to all religious beliefs regardless of who they belong to Christian, Muslim, or otherwise. I myself left my religion at 13 around 20 years ago now, so trust me I am no ally to religious apologists, but when it comes to some of their talking points I still say that a broke clock is right twice a day for the wrong reason.
I would argue that most modern day progressives that would be called woke or defend woke are in no way actual progressives considering what they advocate for now day compare to like 30 or more years ago
The term is white knighting and you are 100% on the mark.
Wokeism never existed, only misunderstandings in progressive action. Let's not fall for the right's creation.
You and Seth have had the best take of this that I've seen. Cheers
She says she chooses to believe. I don’t think belief works that way, and I’d say I don’t think she believes it either. Rather, she is giving a reason that the religious can’t attack so easily
Good analysis. Although I don't really care either, I am disappointed that she has unwittingly given a small measure of validation to the religious crazies.
The fact that she worked with PregerU, really tells me everything I need to know about her motivations and willingness to blatantly lie to achieve her goals.
There's a reason I refer to them as PropagandaU; Honesty has never been a quality associated with PropagandaU, and the number of times they have intentionally lied about what was in a Study they were referencing is a solid demonstration of their untrustworthiness.
The fact that she spent years working with a group, that has been constantly caught outright lying; really says a lot about her "honesty" in her conversion.
Now that she's becoming more and more political, it makes sense for her to pretend to be a Christian; there's still places where "atheist is evil" has been Heavily Indoctrinated into the population.
For sure I wouldn't consider PragerU as always intellectually honest, or well, honest honest. Not to defend them, but there are a lot of dishonest organizations. It is hard to find one that isn't. This is why the left and right will always find something wrong with the other side. But there is far too much preaching to the choir out there. Liberals should join conservative shows and conservatives should join with liberals. The idea of not working with them is uncomfortable to me as it encourages more tribalism.
@@username7763 I'm fine with Conservatives, I'm not ok with right-wing Propagandists that make a living selling lies.
I have not heard a single argument from PragerU, that wasn't intentionally misleading in the way it's phrased, or deliberately manipulated in the way they represent other arguments. I started studying Philosophy 20+ years ago, and ran across Dennis Prager garbage back then.
I know a lot of Conservatives, I grew up in rural Alaska, where Democrat was a dirty word. The state is hardcore, Independent Conservative; they're so Independent that they were one of the only Republican dominated states that legalized abortion.
The real problem, is education and awareness. Many, many Conservatives only interact with political ideas, through the various forms of Propaganda garbage that is put out as "media"
My parents are atheists, that have never heard of PragerU, and have never gone to church. They also have no experience with non-binary people, they are uncomfortable around homosexuals; both of them got sucked into the right-wing Propaganda programs like Faux "News" and OAN. Since they have no direct experiences outside of where they have been in rural Alaska for the last 50+ years, they take all the Incredibly Ignorant stances that right-wingers thrive on.
The problem really is simply many Conservatives are stuck 50+ years in the past, and cannot accept that the definitions they were fed as children, need to change.
When humans beings are telling them, "No, I'm not binary, that doesn't work." and the conservative mindset is "You're just confused/mentally ill." then there really isn't any middle ground. When I was growing up, being homosexual was considered to be "mentally ill" exactly in the same way that now they are treating trans people. They are so sure their way is "correct" they literally call it "grooming" to accept a trans child's individual expression.
The major problem, is we have way too many humans Indoctrinated into perceiving the world incorrectly. Ancient Mythology needs to stay in the past, with the people that believed in those Myths; we don't need the words of ancient goat herders to be what defines modern humans.
@@13shadowwolf Interesting background and there are plenty of things there I agree with. But you lost me with "No, I'm not binary, that doesn't work." That's non-scientific. Mammals have male and female sexes and that is it. The whole gender spectrum is totally different from homosexuality as that has been scientifically shown to happen. If someone's mind doesn't match reality, then something is wrong in their mind. If they are male but every neuron in their brain says female, their brain is wrong. I am diagnosed as mentally ill. My brain doesn't match reality over certain things. It isn't something to be ashamed of. I don't expect everyone else to pretend like what my brain is telling me is actually reality. It just isn't. My brain is just wrong; this happens sometimes. Biology is strange.
First I’ve heard of her, which is weird because I’ve read books by 2 of the mentioned 4 horsemen (Dawkins, Hitchens), watched tons of talks by Sam Harris, and I’m sure I’ve seen some things from Dennet at some point (guess I should look him up).
She was the guest on Episode 50 of the Sam Harris Making Sense podcast, if you listen to those.
Not gonna lie, I didn't follow her enough during the years to say whether this could be "a loss for atheists", but I can say from her article that she just reminded us all why it's important to not share a bunch of statements after you had a celebration full of Holy Wine.
Ali hated Radical Islam but it never occurred to me that she had rational arguments for not believing in God, she was just disgusted by Islam.
Her reasons are to use religion as a tool (like so many others throughout history).
Now 8:54 you killed it hahaha😂😂😂
Don't forget that this tendency could as well be a motivation for those who profess atheism.
But I agree with you that she is only fishing for the best way to amass money and notoriety.
I am Muslim and I don't care what religion she follows. I confess that I hated her way of talking about muslims always in demining ways. Her books were used by extremists to kill in Norway, new Zesland and Quebec.
There is no difference between her and the extremist muslims demining other people.
I hope that she will calm down her rhetoric and at least try to convert us by showing us the benefits of her new faith instead of throwing accusations on us.
She weaponized a religion that deeply matters to billions of people, wielding it as a political weapon, exploiting it as a vehicle for her own self interested goals to stay relevant, and she had the gall to complain about nihilism? The move she pulled was one of the most cynical, nihilistic move there is.
I'm Dutch and I consider myself an Atheist with progressive political views. Ayaan Hirsi Ali used to be a Dutch citizen, and a member of the Labour party, before becoming more conservative and later being expelled from this country.
Do I care at all that she has left Atheism? Nope, Christian conservatives can have her.
But will they keep her _thinking raptor_
@@Sephiroth144 For really you did not get those empty Videos where godless alone people constantly talk about God, showing their obsession, are made not to help anyhow your godless alone life but to trap you into this empty stupid cult called atheism they know we live in the time of stupidity and godless trash people so they need to capture them as more as they can. They know you are the most stupid, weakest and alone people in the face of earth and they need to take advantages on you. They know you run anytime you see godless ass to kiss it. That what this empty BS cult atheism make you be, without God and without dignity. But let see how you are in trapped in this cult: Let see how many godless rats are here with their empty words and life, just as their cult called atheism.
Why? Why Godless alone trash people want see the existence of God when it is clear that if they and all the things they see around (earth, stars, planets and so on) if they are creation something must created them. For real no respect for those godless blind trash people. God is what they do not know have and do not know in their miserable alone trash life. But God will take care about them as well, once death as anyone alse. Let's hope we will have better generation that those godless alone trash one.... We really do not need this empty and worthless cult called atheism and those modern godless alone idiots who thinks God cares to exist what those poor alone people think about him. No respect for them and their miserable godless alone life. (they are also godless ass kissers, as they run anytime they see a godless alone person... that what happen when you do not have God in your life, you lose your dignity, and you start to be disgusting in that way)... Oh anyway when you stopped to believe in God something died on you but you are so pathetic that you are not willing to admit it (right?). What trashy people without shame they deny their creator, and they will be judge for it.... Liars ad patetich as any Goddeniers. so their worthless empty life without him.... They are even the weakest people, because if they are wrong, they are the ones who will pay for denying God... Won't be in their shoes. No respect for them....
I told you this godless is the worst generation (those people are just empty and worthless as the cult they are in), and when it will be gone with their stupid empty, worthless atheism that does not going anywhere, that do not offer or teach anything, none will complain about it, not even those very weak losers!!!!! ... Do not call them atheist but godless alone souless trash. Let's forget about those worthless empty people and their worthless and empty cult do not even good to clean the dirtiest motel. WHEN YOU WILL BE GONE NONE WILL COMPLAIN ABOUT YOU AND YOUR STUPID CULt CALLED ATHEISM. You are the worst of people, no respect for you:... those are juss godless alone trash people, liers as any Godeniers with less thing sacred in their miserable alone godless life… those weak people are so weak and alone that they wait for an empty videos from an obsessed godless person to kiss his ass, disgustingly (no God, No Dignity) it would not change their life, actually more alone and empty, (they do not even have a real community) empty life they live empty shit they are in like this stupid cult called Atheism! No respect for them. (They are very weak, empty and frustrated people, a life that none will accepted, but those godless alone trash idiots).. those who say there is no God will pay for it, soon or later... No won't be a godless alone trash person into an empty cult not even good for my ass such atheism, that offers them nothing. But emptiness and lonlyness for their miserabile godless alone life. No respect for them. They are just empty as their cult called atheism. But they will pay this soon or later, and all the emptiness for nothing they are facing in their ridicolous miserable alone life! It is time to throw on the trash empty atheism and godless alone trash people, they are not even worthless to clean shit. You can not respect them and their emptiness! It is over for you, trash is not even good to clean you of all this atheism BS. No respect for you. Let's really hope we can have a better generation and forget this godless alone trash one as quickly as possible. IT IS OVER, it is time for you and this nosense called atheism to go back from the nothing you come from. No respect for you. You will pay all this shit, soon or later... Today I will put your BS atheism in the toilet and flash it and you godless alone will shut up, ok? You are worthless and empty as your stupid cult. No respect for you.... This is the worst, weakest, ampty generation, and when it will be over with their stupid empty cult called atheism none will complain it. IT'S IS OVER, godless alone trash.... Those godless alone poor people are playing with the fire, and they will pay for it, and even badly........ They are so desperated and frustrated in and empty stupid life... No sorry for you. Let's hope in the next generation, let's hope in a better generation, and let's forget this one and trhow it on the trash with their stupid, nosense cult called atheism that will lead them anywhere. No respect for you again....
Why was she expelled?
@@HM-iy3dc She wasn't expelled from the Netherlands, she was expelled from Parliament, (technically, she was given a date that she would no longer be able to serve in the Dutch Parliment), because she lied on her asylum papers when she originally came to the Netherlands, (using a grandparents surname, which IS (well, was anyway- pretty sure allowed now, but not 100%) allowed under Dutch, but also a false birthdate. (There is some debate on the specifics of the reasoning - escaping a forced marriage - as accounts vary.)
She was able to keep her Dutch citizenship, but was disallowed from continuing in the Dutch Parliament (and the reprecussions were pretty serious for administration); she chose to move to the US around this time.
@@Pssybart nah, you can keep her
If I were a christian, this would seriously frustrate me. Her reasoning being first and foremost as a political tool to "combat" ideologies is so disingenuous it is sickening. Having my religion waved around like a weapon and being displayed as a stance instead of a spiritual practice is disgusting. I honestly hope she stays a Christian, she's an embarrassment of a human being that I don't want soiling secularist views.
When "woke-ism" is thrown around, I tend to roll my eyes, particularly when it's coming from the Fox News/Tucker Carlson types. But when Ayaan says it, there's literally no question in my mind what she's referring to.
Specifically, what Ayaan is referring to is the identity politics left-of-center, that she's even been a direct target of. She's spent most of her career as an intellectual attempting to combat Islamism with a particular focus on how damaging it is to women. So it's quite galling when so-called feminists reject her as an ally because it includes being critical of Islam. This is the fundamental double standard she's been staring down the barrel of as long as I've followed her work.
And now these same morons are celebrating the Hamas attacks in Israel. This is what Ayaan calls "woke-ism." I call it abject stupidity and runaway cult-think.
Exactly.
"But how could anyone, who is presumably against slavery, be against the advocating of minority rights..." Modified skeptic, ladies and gentlemen.
It has everything to do with politics. She wants to rise thru the ranks of a political career. She wants to ride the conservative GOP blueprint for political career success. To do this, you need that “I’m a christian.” card.
I think she’s still a nonbeliever. She just needed that card to continue to promote herself and pander to her potential conservative voters.
I have very little to no respect for politicians to begin with regardless of affiliation. I just don’t like the system at all.
I saw her name floating around and didn't know who she was. I'm "only" an atheist and don't (anymore) think of it as one of the most critical parts of my identity, so the only recognition I got from the name was, "That's not Ilhan Omar's daughter, is it?!"
unscripted drew is awesome 😎
Some random thoughts after watching this. Hirsi Ali in her writings always seemed interested in utilitarianism as a philosophy more than anything else. So my curiosity is what might she have found in Christ whether, now, the Bible, or some other context that she sees as useful? That's my curiosity about her thinking. My, other thought is that I wonder if she has actually given up a secular mindset. On the liberal/left side many socialist and humanist thinkers find admiration for Christ. In the Bible there are ups and downs about his supernatural take, yet there's a strain of kindness to ones fellow man that many secular minded people find in the life of service. There's nothing saying that she has not found inspiration there, while not exactly practicing the rituals therefrom. Does anyone know what strain of Christian reason she has come to associate with? And one final thought. Many contemporary atheists seem to associate with humanism and progressivism or both. But there's always those that are taken with things like Ayn Rant, Nietzsche, or libertarian ideas. The atheist position is as much a part of conservative thinking as liberal minded ideas I have found over the years. Just some thoughts, thank you.
Never underestimate the power of conformity
Truth.
Even if you believe you don’t conform as atheist, you are Conforming.. with your group too, if you change you are in trouble, they distance themselves from
You.,
That is not with theist but atheist as well
The power of conformity!
Never seen so much of it as I have on this channel.
@@zarbins they are conformist as well
@@cocoalfaridah5831
"To be a non-conformist like us, you have to dress and act like we do!" - Goth Kids, South Park
@@stylesrj even dressing like South Park, you are conforming by imitating them.. you are not free you still under the control and influence on South Park.. they are holding your head with 2 hand and controlling it..
I love how you don't care so much you had to make a video about it.
This is more about acceptance. I worked in DC for many years, and had the pleasure of hearing her speak. And I saw closely how she was treated by both the secular left and religious right back when both wanted to hear what she had to say. To say she was treated badly by secular audiences would be an understatement. This was mostly, as mentioned in the video, because the left was (perhaps overly) sensitive to anything resembling Islamophobia. And her acceptance on the right was clearly because she was saying things they wanted to hear about radical forms of Islam. So yes, after years of this treatment, she became sympathetic to the perspective of those who showed her compassion and understanding. This is not difficult to understand, and as allies of LGBTQ people know full well, sometimes it's personal interactions rather than rational arguments that move people on these issues. It works both ways. Had secular audiences been more empathetic to her personally, I suspect the outcome would have been different.
I gotta admit, I’ve been in this community/movement since I was a wee child and I didn’t know who this woman was.
I bet she pulls a petersen and joins the daily wire. embrace the grift