Michael Schellenberger

Rank 42 of 47
|
Score -88
9/24/2025, 3:57:23 PM
X
In reply to:
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
·
22h
@timkaine According to the New Atheists the New Atheists failed like all scientism fails. They couldn't explain reality or deliver a positive vision or affirmative program. Their entire project rests on really dumb assumptions about reality and nature.
Norman
@PeregrinePulp
·
22h
@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...
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
·
22h
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
·
23h
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 consistency of scientific theories, specifically the Big Bang theory, in a sarcastic manner. It engages in public discourse by addressing scientific debates and their implications on broader philosophical or ideological discussions.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement uses sarcasm, which may not promote understanding or empathy, potentially leading to misunderstanding or dismissiveness. [-1]
  2. Principle 2:
    I will respect the privacy and dignity of others and will not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.
    The statement does not engage in direct harassment or hate speech, but the tone could be seen as dismissive of scientific discourse.
  3. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The sarcastic tone does not promote empathy or compassion, as it mocks the perceived inconsistency in scientific theories. [-1]
  4. 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 does not engage in constructive dialogue, as it uses sarcasm rather than reasoned argumentation. [-1]