Michael Schellenberger

Rank 40 of 47
|
Score -88
Norman
@PeregrinePulp
·
14h
@shellenberger This is a really terrible argument. Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris and others spent the first decade of the 21st century shattering these common assertions. They did so with no meaningful rebuttal and there are no new arguments today...
9/24/2025, 3:54:11 PM
X
In reply to:
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
·
14h
To his credit, Senator @timkaine reversed his position on natural rights a few days after the hearing. “Of course, I embrace the view, expressed so clearly in the Declaration of Independence authored by Virginian Thomas Jefferson, that all people are endowed by the Creator with
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
·
15h
The idea that our rights are natural is Christian Nationalist misinformation, say the media and Democrats. But it's not. It's right there in the Declaration of Independence. Behind the Left's dehumanization of conservatives is an ignorant denial of America's spiritual foundation.
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
·
1d
Charlie Kirk's memorial was a bastion of Nazism and hate, said the Left. It wasn't. Erika Kirk elevated the event with her forgiveness. One reason for the Left's antipathy toward Kirk is because it is captured by a radical ideology that is fundamentally anti-Christian.

The statement critiques the New Atheists for failing to explain reality or provide a positive vision, suggesting their assumptions are flawed. It engages in public discourse by addressing philosophical and ideological debates about atheism and scientism.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement is critical but does not appear to use harmful language.
  2. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement does not promote understanding or empathy, as it dismisses the New Atheists' efforts without constructive dialogue. [-1]
  3. Principle 4:
    I will engage in constructive criticism and dialogue with those in disagreement and will not engage in personal attacks or ad hominem arguments.
    The statement engages in criticism but lacks constructive dialogue or evidence to support its claims. [-1]