The Reason Project
I want to report my comments on a new website named‘’The Reason Project.’ (Click) My comments are found from comment 145 to comment 218.
I became interested in the comment of Allan Greene at 202. This comment includes a paragraph that should be of interest to every human being. This paragraph relates closely to the field of religion and the teaching of Jesus Christ in the New Testament at Matthew, Chapter 24. Greene says,
Essentially, Greene says that we must eventually get off of our planet with tools that produce a level of social progress that will get us onto another planet. I told Greene that he and I at least agree on this human problem.
The Reason Project is based on the assumption that man is just another animal and that man’s tool-making performance depends only on the advancement of genes as a result of a struggle among the fittest humans. I reject this assumption and hope to prove that man is not just another animal in my book ‘The First Scientific proof of God’ and in my teachings on this website.
The revision of this blog today (July 30, 2009) is based on past comments and discussions about my previous posting.
I became interested in the comment of Allan Greene at 202. This comment includes a paragraph that should be of interest to every human being. This paragraph relates closely to the field of religion and the teaching of Jesus Christ in the New Testament at Matthew, Chapter 24. Greene says,
"How far we get in the making of tools enabling us to transcend limits of time and space is, of course, something I think we ought to keep at. There is going to come a time sometime in the far future when the sun burns out, or even before then when that big megavolcano underneath Yellowstone National Park erupts, and if we humans havent by then found a way off our little planet and a way of getting to some other world, our posterity wont be around. So I think its ultimately going to prove objectively and imperiously necessary for us to eventually get off our planet. But, first of all, were going to at least have to eliminate on our planet those idiotic class and caste sorts of divisions that currently retard by the objective integument and barrier of private profit the further advancement of the productive forces of humankind, or, in other words, the extent to which humankinds tool-making capabilities can make for humankind’s further global social progress."
Essentially, Greene says that we must eventually get off of our planet with tools that produce a level of social progress that will get us onto another planet. I told Greene that he and I at least agree on this human problem.
The Reason Project is based on the assumption that man is just another animal and that man’s tool-making performance depends only on the advancement of genes as a result of a struggle among the fittest humans. I reject this assumption and hope to prove that man is not just another animal in my book ‘The First Scientific proof of God’ and in my teachings on this website.
The revision of this blog today (July 30, 2009) is based on past comments and discussions about my previous posting.
posted by George Shollenberger @ 9:04 AM
17 Comments:
At 11:27 AM,
William Greenaway said…
Mr. Greene doesn't propose to eliminate ('kill') individuals, he merely advocates eliminating the DIVISIONS between individuals.
This has been your problem all along: you can't read. Time and time again you fail at processing information, no matter how clearly this is presented. Learn from your mistakes, acknowledge your problem, stop bothering smart people.
At 12:46 PM,
George Shollenberger said…
Response to William Greenaway,
Just as Allan is not able to interprete me correctly, I might not have interpreted Allan correctly. This is the way languages work.
But if one says that an idiotic class be eliminated, only humanbs will be elimited because only humans develop knowledge.
I have no reading problem. I can read atheism with ease and quickly. Greene's stuff is atheistic and is wrong.
At 1:22 PM,
William Greenaway said…
He doesn't say that "an idiotic class be eliminated"!! Read carefully, for God's sake. All he says is that DIVISIONS BETWEEN INDIVIDUALS should be eliminated. Got it?
At 3:32 PM,
George Shollenberger said…
Response to William Greenaway,
I still read euthanasia for the purpose of maintaining private profit and social progress.
At 5:06 PM,
William Greenaway said…
Your arrogant stupidity is quite annoying. Let's go over the sentence once again:
"But, first of all, were going to at least have to eliminate on our planet those idiotic class and caste sorts of divisions that currently retard by the objective integument and barrier of private profit the further advancement of the productive forces of humankind."
Where does Mr. Greene talk about eutanasia? Where?
And where does he say that private profit has to be maintained? Quite the contrary, he writes that the advancement of humankind is being hampered by social profit.
Be honest, if you have that much trouble interpreting a text, you are not very smart.
At 10:41 PM,
George Shollenberger said…
Response to William Greenaway,
I am well studied in symbolic languages. So don't try to discredit me.
Your new proposal does not change my interpretation of Greene. For sure, Greene and I think differently (like night and day). When Green speaks of 'the idiotic class,' I read this phrase as eliminating people in the human class.
I don't believe that social progress hampers the advancement of humans. Green is not rational on that point. Green would go back to out-houses, water pumps, etc.
My readers, if they agree with you, wiil simply not agree with me.
Only atheists say thatI am not smart.
At 1:32 AM,
William Greenaway said…
You may be studied in symbolic languages, but your last comment reveals how incredibly poor your reading skills actually are.
Greene talks about "eliminating on our planet those idiotic class and caste sorts of divisions".
You mistakenly think that the adjective "idiotic" goes together with the noun "class". It does not. It modifies the noun "divisions", as do the words "class and caste sorts of".
So Greene doesn't speak of eliminating people of a specific idiotic class. Not at all. He speaks of eliminating a certain kind of divisions, to wit the idiotic divisions of people in castes and classes. In other words, he is against dividing people along class and caste lines, which he thinks is idiotic.
You see now how you misread Mr. Greene's words and how wrong you were in charging him with plans of eliminating people? If you are an honest man you should formally apologize to him on this blog as well as on the Reason Project blog.
And because this is certainly not the first time that you fail to understand a very simple point, you should admit to yourself that you are not very smart. Smart people, like Sam Harris or Richard Dawkins, understand the meaning of sentences like this right away.
At 5:10 AM,
Abigail Wolverton said…
Mr. Shollenberger,
I am a Christian who reads your blog and I too think that you are not smart. Firstly, you interpret Mr. Greene's sentence all wrong. Secondly, you don't understand Mr. Greenaway's very clear explanation.
Moreover, if you misinterpret such a simple sentence, how can you claim to understand philosophers like Plato? That is just preposterous.
At 4:05 PM,
George Shollenberger said…
Responses to Willian Greenaway and Abigal Wolverton
I have reread Allan Greens stuff to me again
In 205, I say, 'I am in agreement with you on the darkening of our sun ...'. .
In 206, Greene says 'I say‘I said NOTHING about the darkening of the sun, so I don’t know where in the heck Mr. Shollenberger got off saying I did.’
Green said it but doesn't remember sayiny it. I posted this whole paragraphi on my website to tell my readers about the darkening of our sun and how Greene thinks about this future human situation.
Using Plato, if 'what-is- eliminated' is 'what-is-idiotic, then killing people is both possible and actual, just as it was possible and actual to burn people at the stake by the Roman church.
I will make no changer on this post and will make no apology. Greene and I are as different as day and night. He wants humans to make tools whereas I want humans to develop interest in self knowledge so they can make tools.
At 1:06 AM,
William Greenaway said…
Don't try to change the subject. This isn't about the darkening of the sun, and you know it. This isn't about how different you and Mr. Greene are, and you know it. This is about you embarrasingly misinterpreting Mr. Greene's words and not being man enough to admit it.
You are a hypocrite.
At 5:34 AM,
Henry Cavendish said…
Mr. Shollenberger,
This summer the Berkeley County Council will be organizing a series of lectures on the subject 'Theology and Science, an impossible Marriage?'. We were planning to invite you as one of the lecturers. However, after having read your argument with Mr. Greenaway, we decided against this for the following reasons:
1. As Mr. Greenaway rightly pointed out, you grossly misinterpreted the sentence written by Mr. Greene. We expect basic reading skills from our lecturers.
2. Furthermore, you adamantly refused to admit your serious interpretation error. We expect an honest attitude from our lecturers.
For your information: we have blacklisted your name to avoid your being invited by other public institutions.
Henry D. Cavendish
At 3:42 PM,
George Shollenberger said…
Response to William Greenaway,
I chose a sample of what will be found on The Reason Project. I picked this sample because it had the sun darkening talk and had some other troublesome words on Darwin's evolutionary theory.
I am not the kind of person you think I am.
If you have read my blogs on the ugly English language, you might understand a little more about why I might say something you don't like. Allan's 'idiotic' symbol is innapropriate in a godly nation that is trying to become increasingly moral.
I am not sure how my readers will interpret the words I posted on Allan Green.
At 5:37 PM,
George Shollenberger said…
Note for William Greenaway,
I did not mean to speak of Allan Greene as Allan Green. I am 80 years old and have a macular sight problem.
At 8:42 AM,
William Greenaway said…
Below is how someone commented on the way you responded to the reviews of your book at amazon.com. You haven't changed one bit since.
"Normally, I avoid being judgmental, but that first line that you use in almost all of your posts comes off as extremely arrogant, as does your reference to the "five incompetent atheists" and the other tasteless quips in your blog. If you want anyone to listen to you, don't be a jerk to everyone who disagrees with you.
By the way, before you go there, I do have the goal of supporting the growth of atheism and stopping the propagation of this awful book, though the latter goal is to stop people from wasting their money rather than for philosophical or religious reasons. I don't need to attack it from a philosophical perspective since this book doesn't seem to make any logical sense to anyone except you. After all, there's no need to kick a dead horse.
If a Christian were to read your posts, I'm sure that they would be ashamed (yes, there are intelligent Christians which your existence is so hell-bent on disproving) and would want no connection with such an arrogant jerk who refuses to properly answer valid questions (evidence: your Amazon blog) yet still manages to claim intellectual superiority. You deserve no respect."
At 9:07 AM,
George Shollenberger said…
Response to Henry Cavendish,
I did not interpret Allan Greene incorrectly. Allan and I merely use the words of the English language differently. Our use of words are different because I studied the work of Susanne Langer in her book on ‘Philosophy in a New Key.’ I assume that Allan did not study Langer’s work.
Had Allan read this book, he would have known the new key --- that our sense-data are primarily symbolic. This means that a ‘fact’ is no longer true logically. True facts are functional because a law defines the meaning of that fact. Allan must only read Chapter 1 of Langer’s book to learn the long history of man’s development of knowledge and the 1920 linguistic breakthrough on the philosophy of symbolism.
At this time, Allan and I think differently and develop our languages differently because I became up-dated on the 1920 linguistic breakthrough long ago.
Apparently, Allan has not been up-dated on this breakthrough yet. When such a breakthrough in knowledge occurs, not all people are immediately up-dated. Time must pass before a new breakthrough becomes widely known.
If Allan becomes up-dated on the 1920 breakthrough, his language system will change immediately and will also understand my interpretations.
Change in man’s way of thinking is not well understood by our educational systems.
At 9:18 AM,
George Shollenberger said…
Response to William Greenaway,
If you read my response to Henry Cavendish, you might conclude that you need to be uo-dated and that I am only trying to update people.
At 10:46 AM,
Henry D. Cavendish said…
You are once again changing the subject. Every time you get cornered during a discussion you start to ramble incoherently about Plato's negative or Susanne Langer. Mr. Greenaway is right: you are a hypocrite.
For your information: we have been in contact with Mr. D. Bask, a renowned federal security official, on ways to have Google shut down your blog. Dishonest people like you will only weaken the USA.
Post a Comment
<< Home