thebeardslastcall

People giving 5-star ratings before they've even read any of the book seems kind of like an insult to what Stefan stands for and also is perhaps somewhat ironic. That said, congratulations on finishing and releasing your book! Looks like it's selling well on Kindle. Currently #66 in paid Kindle. If you found the time to complete this book, does that mean you may be able to find time to finish your parenting book next in the not too distant future? Sure many people would be interested in getting that one as well.

Finally got my first review on Amazon and first confirmed full read of the book for those interested in someone's review of it: Also decided to do a giveaway on Goodreads to give someone a free opportunity to give the book a chance (and leave feedback for others). Thought it would be nice for someone I'm not directly connected to to read and give a fair critique of the book for others to know its value. I failed to establish enough credibility here for anyone on these forums to have given it a chance to comment on what parts of the book may or may not be worth reading for others, which I thought was a shame since it has some interesting stuff in it and some ideas that could help others. Link to give away: https://www.goodreads.com/giveaway/show/253127?utm_medium=api&utm_source=giveaway_widget Give away begins on Sept 7th and ends on Sept 17th. Then I get the address and ship a copy to the winner.

Talking about the constitutionality about something that's been going on for over a century seems to miss something critical. This isn't a nation based on a constitution, as that was long ago abandoned, and the constitution is merely paraded about on occasion to make an excuse for some judge or lawyer to have their way when they mean to further degrade people's freedoms. Any appeal to the paper word, of little worth, must be made quickly or it's revealed to be a farce. Lots of laws and current actions are unconstitutional. Being unconstitutional alone doesn't hold enough sway to invalidate them. If the system were valid that would be all you'd need, but you need more to make changes. So while you may not be wrong, the relevancy of any such arguments has already been nullified. You need a new argument, or really, a new law passed by politicians, to get rid of the income tax, and they're not inclined to do that anytime soon because people aren't demanding it. As awful and illegitimate as the government is, many people still consider it legitimate as to try to use the ring of power, which is why it survives in its currently ugly and heavily contested form.

If God is axiomatic to them, to mean self-evident, then they aren't just claiming there is a God, they are claiming to be God. How do I counter that as an atheist? (Avengers spoiler)

Michio Kaku is a string theorist and gets plenty wrong. I find him grating to listen to. He's pretty ungrounded, which is probably what enabled him to write a book called "Physics of the Impossible" and why he's been stuck on string theory for decades and why he's overconfident about having debunked some of Einstein's ideas with quantum physics. Why the brain specifically as opposed to an animal's biology and body in general as a model? The body has to deal with many rogue elements and has many specialized and different areas that a group of neurons doesn't. The brain is a model of intelligence, which will naturally help to guide towards intelligent organization and behavior, but the mind is not nearly as diverse as humans are and is way more internally aligned than most large groups of people. Also all the neurons can't fire at once, that would be insane. Also if the mind is a great argument for anarchy, why does it feel a lot like a dictatorship? When many feel as one, then you have a settled mind. When many feel as many, you don't have such an intelligent and well behaved and aligned anarchy. Also many people, where this "perfect model" is represented, go crazy or do all sorts of horrors. The mind is the pivotal element for the best and the worst of us. The brain was spawned from originating cells to all be as a team, but the problem with countries is they lack this alignment to begin with as they specifically disable freedom of association to varying degrees.

You admit you don't get the relevance and then you make up that it has to do with God's existence, but then you shoot down your own proposition as not relevant to that either. Why couldn't you just leave it at the first question?

Find someone else who is also afraid to push back like you. If there are enough of you, you'll gain the ability to say something and you can then try to point out how they're being racist and sexist and promoting hostilities, racism, and sexism against white males over a ghost.

If you want to believe in what is real, what in your reality have you observed that is a display of these qualities of omnipotence or omniscience? What evidence in your short life on Earth have you seen to make an eternal being seem both possible and real? How "real" is God to you now? What is a "power" that never gets used? What is a "potential" that can never or will never be realized? Is all of existence getting wiped out by God, at any moment, a possibility you entertain? You're right to question whether or not you believe, because nobody really believes in God. I doubt Stefan would intentionally strawman a position. My guess on the complexity issue would be to address the argument that a God is a necessary explanation for the complexity and state of reality we observe. To suggest God is an explanation for life's complexity or "grandeur" creates something even more grand to explain this existence. Addressing complexity may thus help point out the flaw of that as a rational for there needing to be a God, as the rational goes in the wrong direction with the explanation. My explanation (in book) for reality appropriately goes in the other direction, arriving at subjective complexity from a simplicity of rules, with no need of a God. I also explain other aspects of what a God is and why a God would be bad. The notion of God appeals to many people and that's what leads them to desire and pretend to believe in one, which is why I make some effort to attack the desirability of a God as well.

My book has arguments against the notion of a god as well, but I don't over-simplify the matter to a list of a few reasons. I also somewhat make the point that it's impossible not to straw-man Christianity, because there are a million different Christianities and they're evolved to be hard to pin down. The one you attack is never the one that defends the religion. The one that is saved is not yours, but they'll pretend if you "saved" one, or one dodges the attack, all have been saved. Thus in a way they are many things and nothing at all, at the same time. A conceptual blob I call it.

I haven't read the book, but would agree with the assertion that complexity doesn't really have anything to do with eternality. You can easily suggest the universe is both eternal and extremely complex. But the universe is also simple in how it works and thus "complex" is a perspective judgement on what constitutes complexity. For example a gravity simulation can have a simple rule that creates a complex set of interactions and behaviors. Also when using the word infinite there is more than one type of infinite and it's relevant to distinguish them. The number Pi may have an infinite number of decimals, but it's never going to be as long as 3.2 and thus has a finite value that is infinitely deep and precise. You said there were four contradictions proposed in the book, did the other three have issues as well or just this one? Are you okay with that definition of God or do you have any issues with it? Do you believe in God or were you merely pointing out a weakness in his argument?

The book is now on Goodreads if anyone wanted to add it to their read later list on that site: http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/34632675-an-invitation-to-planet-big-from-the-beard

Truth isn't by consensus. Polls don't decide if you're racist. A lot of people went extra insane with the election of Trump. Leftist manipulators clearly tapped into a growing uneasiness within leftists and in making Trump out to be worse than the devil they freaked everyone out when he actually became President. As Ben Shapiro says of leftists, they don't think you're racist and evil, they "know" you're racist and evil, and anything you say to the contrary will just piss them off because they feel like you are shameless about your evilness too to not accept and acknowledge it and repent for your "sins". I am curious as to why you are a Trump "supporter" though and classify it that way. Why is your position not "anti-Clinton" and making the best with the alternative, who is also bad, but has some potential upsides and benefits over the alternative? Not that I expect them to hold the same positions on everything, but if you classify a "lesser-evil" as a positive, that can be a bit confusing and misleading as to your actual positions. Clinton also called herself a racist. Perhaps they just want everyone classifying themselves in self-deprecating ways as to victimize the whole world and to do whatever they want as everyone is a "sinner" in need of an overlord to tame them, giving power to those they want in power, to rule over everyone.

There is now a preview for the book via the "Look Inside" feature on Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1543140092 Also shows the back cover (but not the spine). Think it shares different amounts with different people based on some hidden algorithms for deciding that. Shares most of the book with me, but not sure how much it will show others.

Appears it became available on Amazon earlier than expected. Now available: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1543140092 Edit: Not sure how the affiliate links for FDR work, but here they are, to support FDR as well: for Americans: http://www.fdrurl.com/Amazon for Canadians: http://www.fdrurl.com/AmazonCanada for the UK and Europeans: http://www.fdrurl.com/AmazonUK

Not at this time. Here's a copy of the Table of Contents if that helps anyone decide if they want to give the book a chance. The book may live or die based on whether or not anyone here gives the book a chance and then on whether or not they like and share the book enough to give the book credible awareness to spread to others. I have no marketing campaign and no money for ads. I think the book is interesting and read over the content many times, but getting others to give a book a chance when there are countless books and other ways of spending one's time is a rather difficult task, particularly when I have no money for ads to even make people aware of the option. Basically reliant on curiosity being piqued here enough to give the book a chance and then favorable reviews from the few who do, to get others to see the book as worth their time. Thanks for your interest. Part One: On Notions 1 1 On Language and Words 3 2 On Truth and Understanding 10 3 On Nothing, Space, and Matter 15 4 On Fear 25 5 On Intelligent Non-Human Life 28 6 On Priming and the Origins of Beliefs 45 7 On God and Faith 51 8 On Free Will and Consciousness 62 9 On Determinism 78 10 On Morality 88 11 On Patriotism 105 12 On Majority Rule Democracies and Republics 107 13 On Politicians 119 14 On Power 126 15 On Property, Land, and “Intellectual Property” 131 16 On Unsettled Debates and Revolutions 138 17 On Societal Crashes and Market Corruptions 148 Part Two: For A New Way 155 18 For Truth and Understanding 157 19 For Statistics 170 20 For Great Justice 178 21 For Sovereign Democracy 188 22 For Rules 201 23 For Civic Duty and Citizenship 209 24 For Freedom and Spirit 219 25 For Religion and Beliefs 226 26 For Property and Fairness 241 27 For Roads and Trade 255 28 For Morality 266 29 For Openness 292 30 For Hope and Exceptionalism 295 31 For The Way 301 32 For Fear 312 33 For Conclusion 321 If You Could Make the World a Better Place… 329 For Fun 330