So you're an atheist? Not so fast.

Discuss philosophical questions regarding theism (and atheism), and discuss religion as it relates to philosophy. This includes any philosophical discussions that happen to be about god, gods, or a 'higher power' or the belief of them. This also generally includes philosophical topics about organized or ritualistic mysticism or about organized, common or ritualistic beliefs in the existence of supernatural phenomenon.
Post Reply
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: So you're an atheist? Not so fast.

Post by Steve3007 »

Dark Matter:
The absolute underpinning my philosophy (at least for now) is a hypothesized "nexus": a point where every thing, every where, every when and their every possibility converge. It is "primal in all domains: deified or undeified, personal or impersonal, actual or potential, finite or infinite. No thing or being, no relativity or finality, exists except in direct or indirect relation to, and dependence on, the primacy of the First Source and Center" or Nexus. (UB)
Would it be fair to describe your beliefs as a form of pantheism?

-- Updated Tue Sep 19, 2017 8:26 am to add the following --

Ranvier (to someone else):
...if it were word for word to your thoughts, you would still disagree on the meaning.
Ha! Pot, kettle, black?

-- Updated Tue Sep 19, 2017 8:43 am to add the following --

A particular part of the conversation between Count Lucanor and Ranvier:

Count Lucanor:
...you’re confusing randomness with unlawfulness”/

Ranvier:

(Nested quote removed.)
To Count Lucanor:

If we assume for a moment that we live in a Newtonian Universe (i.e. there is none of the genuine randomness introduced by Quantum Theory, only the pseudo randomness of chaotic systems and complexity) then this is an interesting question, isn't it?

In that scenario, wouldn't randomness in fact be synonymous with lawlessness? The roll of the die or the flip of the coin, or any other event in which the outcome is sensitively dependant on un-measured initial conditions and which we therefore think of as random, could never be truly random in the presence of descriptive laws of physics.

Or could it?

Greta made a point earlier about anomalous events and the difficulty of convincing ourselves or others that they happened if they don't fit a wide pattern. Symmetry/repetition - the idea that a small law describes a large number of potential observations - is a hallmark of Natural Law. But why should it be? We assume that this trend will continue until we stumble on some single universal law which describes everything in a self-consistent way. But why? Who ordered that?

Just some thoughts to consider.

-- Updated Tue Sep 19, 2017 8:44 am to add the following --

Correction: My account of the exchange should have read as follows:

A particular part of the conversation between Count Lucanor and Ranvier went like this:

Count Lucanor:
...you’re confusing randomness with unlawfulness”
Ranvier:
what does it mean? What is randomness or unlawfulness? What makes a distinction between these two concepts?
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14942
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: So you're an atheist? Not so fast.

Post by Sy Borg »

Gosh, that moved on quickly.

HAN, excuse me but, aside from coming to philosophy from scientific angles, I am ADHD, intolerant of medications, and I find your long paragraphs of dense prose on screen well nigh unreadable. Note, that I could get through the print version of Hesse's Glass Bead Game, but cannot handle your prose on screen :)

So, if you could indulge me (and others who may be older or addled), by using shorter paragraphs I'd be grateful. You obviously have much to offer but you make your information darn difficult to access. Screen reading and book reading are completely different things, and require adaptation to suitable approaches (this advice also comes from spending a number of years working in web design and reading up on W3C standards).

Anyway, I did catch your tl;dr for Steve - that cartesian (dualism?) "puts the egoic center as the locus for the greatest epistemic authority". Would it be fair to say that you are therefore placing epistemic authority ahead of ontic authority in terms of importance? It's true that focus on externals (science) necessarily carries an opportunity cost regarding one's internal life. Ditto that a focus on internality holds opportunity costs regarding breadth of comprehension.

I would think that, if there is such a thing as a god then trying to understand its workings - externally, internally and concurrently - would be pivotal to understanding. Just as straight science lacks emotional depth, internal focus lacks breadth. I think the Douglas Adams quote was pertinent to this end:
Natives to the small forest world of Oglaroon, Oglaroonians have taken what is a fairly universal trait among sentient species (to cope with the sheer infinite vastness of the universe by simply ignoring it) to its ultimate extreme.

Despite the entire planet being habitable, Oglaroonians have managed to confine their global population to one small nut tree, in which they compose poetry, create art, and somehow fight wars. The consensus among those in power that any trees one might observe from the outer branches are merely hallucinations brought on by eating too many oglanuts, and anyone who thinks differently is hurled out of the tree, presumably to his death.
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: So you're an atheist? Not so fast.

Post by Steve3007 »

Greta:
I would think that, if there is such a thing as a god then trying to understand its workings - externally, internally and concurrently - would be pivotal to understanding.
Ay, there's the rub.

If we did do that then we'd just be treating this god thing as another object of scientific study. In that case, a central reason for proposing its existence (to add purpose to the universe) is taken from us. God would just be another mechanism and, as with all mechanisms, the questions wouldn't stop. We would still be able to keep demanding ever-deeper mechanisms.

But if we don't do that and take the "it is not for us to ponder His divine purpose / He moves in mysterious ways" approach, then it seems a bit of an unsatisfying dead end. The question then becomes: why did we choose that particular point as the dead end? Why not just say everything that ever happens is due to an unknowable divine will? I guess this is what is normally called the "God of the gaps" phenomenon.
User avatar
Ranvier
Posts: 772
Joined: February 12th, 2017, 1:47 pm
Location: USA

Re: So you're an atheist? Not so fast.

Post by Ranvier »

Count Lucanor

In order to be convincing, the target audience must be open to the possibility of being convinced. What takes place here, which is a common practice among many debaters, is to commit indiscriminately a practice that's deleterious to the quality of the debate and attribute it to the opponent. Fine, I shell make lemonade. Let us try a checklist:

You debate from the atheist position, which proposes:
- There is no God. There is no "Conscious… designer… first cause…". There is no need for such things and atheists are allergic to such terms. Check
- Randomness (in respect to the universe) is "causes and effects in a given system, which produce unpredictable outcomes, with the lack of any system or structure of reality". “They (matter) all originate from previous states of matter. Check

This concept of randomness is evident in this exchange:
Ranvier
Atheism, non-theism, anti-theism, doesn't offer any explanation or a path to understand our existence other than a "random" accidental emergence of life. No meaning, no purpose, no direction, nothing...
Count Lucanor
Well, actually, that "other than" will still be an explanation of our existence, even though you may not be pleased with it. All that is required for identifying a purpose in a rational being is that there may be an explanation to look for.


This is puzzling, since the first sentence affirms: “No meaning, no purpose, no direction, nothing...” as the explanation in itself. While in the second sentence: “All that is required for identifying a purpose in a rational being is that there may be an explanation to look for”.

How does one read this? We already have an explanation, which is nothing… yet the “rational” people may identify some purpose in a search for the purpose in nothing. Such rational is beyond my logic, which is further conflicted by the following exchange:
Ranvier
How can we infer anything about the “number of outcomes”?
This was in reference to the number of universes but let us roll with that...
Count Lucanor
By simple observation we can realize that a dice will behave following the basic laws of nature and its geometry will determine the possible outcomes.
So again, randomness of “reality” becomes complicated by not being so random after all, since things are determined by the order in the laws of nature and each event that shaped matter in a geometry that has a certain number of outcomes.

- This is why the laws of nature are difficult to establish in this instance, perhaps because it contradicts the above theory of randomness. Did they come from randomness or are these just human inventions? Is there any pattern to the laws of nature and where do these laws come from? You answer with a question to a question each time: "On the basis of what you assume that it must "come from" somewhere?"
This is perhaps an instance when things just are the way they are, randomly, and there is no purpose in asking why they are the way they are. No check on that one yet

Let us continue with the "randomness" by return to previous post
Count Lucanor
No. Again, you're confusing randomness with unlawfulness. If a dice is thrown in the air, the resulting number will be unpredictable, considering all the options available, but that does not mean the dice will behave unaffected by gravity and other physical forces, nor it will produce a number not available among the dice options. The same way, the cave is the result of well known natural forces, not needing a purpose. And the circumstance of someone being lost in it may also be the result of other contingent, unpredictable factors, all of which coulde be traceable to the material causes of life on Earth, without the need of a divine designer.
Ok, let us try this again to dispel my “confusion”.
On one hand you claim that the cause and effect are random events in a random universe with random laws of nature.
On the other hand, the laws of nature act upon the dice according to such laws, which is no longer random because there is an order and predictability to the laws of nature. Something must give; we can’t have it both ways.
Not to mention that the cause and effect we observe is quite logical in itself and not random, in that there is always an effect for the cause, where something doesn’t appear out of “nothing”.

This brings us to this exchange:
Ranvier
I already offered my break down of the “logic” and the rationale of the “confused” people that contradict any logic for any purpose.
Count Lucanor
But so far the only one contradicting his own "logic" has been shown to be you. You said that finding an explanation of existence defined purpose, but then you deny that same possibility.
Which explanation are you referring to? The explanation of: "…random accidental emergence of life. No meaning, no purpose, no direction, nothing...”?

This brings us to this exchange:
Ranvier
Therefore, there should be no surprise that there isn’t any purpose for “reason”, hence the bewilderment in arguments for morality, human laws, or any given path for the future. Where do these things come from and why do we need them?
Count Lucanor
These things are part of the actual circumstances of existence. There are some conditions now, from which I depart to reach a future condition.
Ok, I’m not sure what that means? The actual circumstances of this random existence render us capable to feel pain and pleasure, therefore, we respond in a certain way to given circumstances. But how does the above sentence explain any purpose in the human laws, morality or a specific path for the future? Where does such “purpose” come from in a random purposeless reality?

This is why I keep asking for a comprehensive atheist view that makes a logical sense in explaining not only where should we go but why do we even care where we go.
Dark Matter
Posts: 1366
Joined: August 18th, 2016, 11:29 am
Favorite Philosopher: Paul Tillich

Re: So you're an atheist? Not so fast.

Post by Dark Matter »

Steve3007 wrote:Dark Matter:
The absolute underpinning my philosophy (at least for now) is a hypothesized "nexus": a point where every thing, every where, every when and their every possibility converge. It is "primal in all domains: deified or undeified, personal or impersonal, actual or potential, finite or infinite. No thing or being, no relativity or finality, exists except in direct or indirect relation to, and dependence on, the primacy of the First Source and Center" or Nexus. (UB)
Would it be fair to describe your beliefs as a form of pantheism?
Panentheism.
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: So you're an atheist? Not so fast.

Post by Steve3007 »

Dark Matter:
Things have moved on since my untimely leave. In concordance with the OP, I'd like to reiterate: "Science deals with physical-energy activities; religion deals with eternal values. True philosophy grows out of the wisdom which does its best to correlate these quantitative and qualitative observations."
A quick comment on this definition of science. I think a more helpful definition of science is a more general one. In my view, science deals with patterns in observations. That's it. If those patterns lead us to find concepts like "energy" or "matter" useful then so be it. But they're not central. They're just examples of particular patterns.

-- Updated Tue Sep 19, 2017 9:28 am to add the following --
Panentheism
OK. Interesting. Sort of the superset of God being the creator of the universe and God being the universe.
Dark Matter
Posts: 1366
Joined: August 18th, 2016, 11:29 am
Favorite Philosopher: Paul Tillich

Re: So you're an atheist? Not so fast.

Post by Dark Matter »

Steve3007 wrote:Dark Matter:


(Nested quote removed.)


OK. Interesting. Sort of the superset of God being the creator of the universe and God being the universe.
“It matters little what idea of the Father you may entertain as long as you are spiritually acquainted with the ideal of his infinite and eternal nature.” (UB) It seems to me that atheism, like the OP suggests, lacks any grounding in an absolute, let alone acquaintance with the ideal of anything having an infinite and eternal nature.

-- Updated September 19th, 2017, 2:00 pm to add the following --

When any mention is made of the possibility of science assisting us coming to terms with cosmic values, atheism turns a deaf ear. The question is "why?"
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: So you're an atheist? Not so fast.

Post by Steve3007 »

Dark Matter:
It seems to me that atheism, like the OP suggests, lacks any grounding in an absolute, let alone acquaintance with the ideal of anything having an infinite and eternal nature.
I agree with that sentence up until the word "lacks". After that, I don't understand what it means.
When any mention is made of the possibility of science assisting us coming to terms with cosmic values, atheism turns a deaf ear. The question is "why?"
I don't know. I didn't know atheism had an ear. But if you want to find patterns in your observations, I'd say science is your man. It's not much good for anything else, frankly.
User avatar
Count Lucanor
Posts: 2318
Joined: May 6th, 2017, 5:08 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Umberto Eco
Location: Panama
Contact:

Re: So you're an atheist? Not so fast.

Post by Count Lucanor »

Ranvier wrote:Count Lucanor

In order to be convincing, the target audience must be open to the possibility of being convinced. What takes place here, which is a common practice among many debaters, is to commit indiscriminately a practice that's deleterious to the quality of the debate and attribute it to the opponent. Fine, I shell make lemonade. Let us try a checklist:
Please note that to avoid a "closed mind" approach, I departed from assuming your own initial argument, so that we take it to its necessary logical conclusions. I'm not necessarily stating my own atheist position. Let us all be clear that we're engaged in testing the soundness of your position on atheism, according to the criteria of testing that you provided. If after some exchanges you begin to back off from that criteria, we might be reaching some conclusions, don't we?
Ranvier wrote: You debate from the atheist position, which proposes:
- There is no God. There is no "Conscious… designer… first cause…". There is no need for such things and atheists are allergic to such terms. Check
- Randomness (in respect to the universe) is "causes and effects in a given system, which produce unpredictable outcomes, with the lack of any system or structure of reality". “They (matter) all originate from previous states of matter. Check
You misquoted me on the statement about randomness, but let's move along...
Ranvier wrote: This concept of randomness is evident in this exchange:
Ranvier
Atheism, non-theism, anti-theism, doesn't offer any explanation or a path to understand our existence other than a "random" accidental emergence of life. No meaning, no purpose, no direction, nothing...
Count Lucanor
Well, actually, that "other than" will still be an explanation of our existence, even though you may not be pleased with it. All that is required for identifying a purpose in a rational being is that there may be an explanation to look for.


This is puzzling, since the first sentence affirms: “No meaning, no purpose, no direction, nothing...” as the explanation in itself. While in the second sentence: “All that is required for identifying a purpose in a rational being is that there may be an explanation to look for”.
I saw this one mistake of yours a while ago and it's about time now to take you out of that confusion: you're equating the lack of purpose of existence with the lack of explanation of existence. The "why" against the "how". At the beginning, we both had just acknowledged a relation between the two: to find an explanation of how we came into existence provided the purpose, the path, the "why it makes sense to be here", for a rational being. It's not my proposal, it's yours, and you provided all by yourself the explanation: "the random accidental emergence of life". That's the why it will make sense to be here: as individuals we are thrown into existence and it's up to us to construct our own future, our path, our day to day purposes that will motivate our actions, will produce outcomes and will affect the lives of those that come after us. So, at the same time, we're the result of the purposes and actions of the previous generations.

Ranvier wrote:How does one read this? We already have an explanation, which is nothing…
Wrong. If we have an explanation, then it is something.

Ranvier wrote:yet the “rational” people may identify some purpose in a search for the purpose in nothing. Such rational is beyond my logic,
Since you were corrected, this statement is baseless.
Ranvier wrote:which is further conflicted by the following exchange:
Ranvier
How can we infer anything about the “number of outcomes”?
This was in reference to the number of universes but let us roll with that...
Count Lucanor
By simple observation we can realize that a dice will behave following the basic laws of nature and its geometry will determine the possible outcomes.
So again, randomness of “reality” becomes complicated by not being so random after all, since things are determined by the order in the laws of nature and each event that shaped matter in a geometry that has a certain number of outcomes.
It's only complicated in your confused mind. Now you're confusing lawfulness with determinism: if the outcome of a dice thrown in the air is not predetermined, fixed, then for you it does not follow any physical laws. That's obviously false, because it is precisely by the laws of nature that the outcomes are both unpredictable and limited to a known set of possibilities.

-- Updated September 19th, 2017, 10:22 pm to add the following --
Steve3007 wrote:To Count Lucanor:

If we assume for a moment that we live in a Newtonian Universe (i.e. there is none of the genuine randomness introduced by Quantum Theory, only the pseudo randomness of chaotic systems and complexity) then this is an interesting question, isn't it?

In that scenario, wouldn't randomness in fact be synonymous with lawlessness? The roll of the die or the flip of the coin, or any other event in which the outcome is sensitively dependant on un-measured initial conditions and which we therefore think of as random, could never be truly random in the presence of descriptive laws of physics.

Or could it?

Greta made a point earlier about anomalous events and the difficulty of convincing ourselves or others that they happened if they don't fit a wide pattern. Symmetry/repetition - the idea that a small law describes a large number of potential observations - is a hallmark of Natural Law. But why should it be? We assume that this trend will continue until we stumble on some single universal law which describes everything in a self-consistent way. But why? Who ordered that?
Just some thoughts to consider.
Again, just like Ranvier, there may be a confusion here that equates the opposite of randomness with determinism, or unlawfulness with randomness. An open system may be undetermined, which does not play against its lawfulness. Such a system (as living ones) are often evolving, reacting or adapting to given conditions and producing new conditions. Closed systems tend to be more deterministic, but even so they also operate under the circumstances of different amounts of interactions: in theory it would be easier to predict the precise behavior of water waves in a small tank, than in the vast ocean.
The wise are instructed by reason, average minds by experience, the stupid by necessity and the brute by instinct.
― Marcus Tullius Cicero
Spectrum
Posts: 5161
Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

Re: So you're an atheist? Not so fast.

Post by Spectrum »

Dark Matter wrote:It seems to me that atheism, like the OP suggests, lacks any grounding in an absolute, let alone acquaintance with the ideal of anything having an infinite and eternal nature.
Why must there a grounding on an Absolute?

What is most obvious is we must establish knowledge [cognition] firstly from our verifiable experiences and the empirical world and work towards the transcendental [not transcendent].
What is most relevant is our foundation of cognition must rest on the following;
  • 1. Experience
    2. Justifiable and proven Empirical knowledge
    3. Justifiable possible empirical knowledge
    4. Philosophical wisdom based on reason and empirical possibilities.
The eternal Absolute which is based on pure faith and very crude primal reasoning but has no empirical possibilities at all.

You stated you rely on correlation.
Correlation is always based the matching of two known empirical variables with its own defined limits.
Your 'limitless' God is non-empirical thus it is a pure speculation.
Correlating what is empirical with some speculated non-empirical thing is a no go.
Can't you see the your comparison of two contrasting senses, thus the fallacy of equivocation?

Beside 'God' is not even a concept but merely an "idea" of no empirical element which inherently is an impossibility and illusory.

Why theists conjure 'God' is driven by an active zombie parasite. Those with very active zombie parasite [ZP] will cling to an anthropomorphic God while those with a lesser active ZP will cling to a pantheistic or panentheistic God or Absolute.
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.
User avatar
Bradiation
New Trial Member
Posts: 8
Joined: May 3rd, 2017, 11:33 pm

Re: So you're an atheist? Not so fast.

Post by Bradiation »

Some one (who knows maybe God or some sort of pattern recognition specialist) pointed out;" while practicing magniloquence often one cannot see past his/her own beliefs."
So I have a question; What is the difference between an atheist or a theist belief? As all belief stems from our injured memories for protection.
Dark Matter
Posts: 1366
Joined: August 18th, 2016, 11:29 am
Favorite Philosopher: Paul Tillich

Re: So you're an atheist? Not so fast.

Post by Dark Matter »

Spectrum wrote: What is most relevant is our foundation of cognition must rest on the following;
  • 1. Experience
    2. Justifiable and proven Empirical knowledge
    3. Justifiable possible empirical knowledge
    4. Philosophical wisdom based on reason and empirical possibilities.
Interesting list. Why do you ignore it?
Spectrum
Posts: 5161
Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

Re: So you're an atheist? Not so fast.

Post by Spectrum »

Dark Matter wrote:
Spectrum wrote: What is most relevant is our foundation of cognition must rest on the following;
  • 1. Experience
    2. Justifiable and proven Empirical knowledge
    3. Justifiable possible empirical knowledge
    4. Philosophical wisdom based on reason and empirical possibilities.
Interesting list. Why do you ignore it?
I am relying on the above where necessary, e.g. to understand how theists are driven by psychology to reify a God which is illusory.

In addition, I can hypothesis there is a possibility of human-liked aliens existing in a Earth-like planet 1 billion light years away. Since all the variables involved are already empirically known, my hypothesis is not an empirical impossibility, albeit not very negligible possibility [0.001%? based on present capability].

Your problem is your idea of 'God' [panentheistic] as a conclusion is ultimately not based on 3 and 4.
Rather your views are based on
  • 3. unJustifiable possible empirical knowledge
    4. Psychological desperations [subliminal] based on primal reason and empirical impossibilities.
That is why your conclusion [on God] driven by primal reason is a transcendental illusion.
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.
Dark Matter
Posts: 1366
Joined: August 18th, 2016, 11:29 am
Favorite Philosopher: Paul Tillich

Re: So you're an atheist? Not so fast.

Post by Dark Matter »

Spectrum wrote:
Dark Matter wrote: (Nested quote removed.)


Interesting list. Why do you ignore it?
I am relying on the above where necessary, e.g. to understand how theists are driven by psychology to reify a God which is illusory.
:lol: And how do you know this?
User avatar
Ranvier
Posts: 772
Joined: February 12th, 2017, 1:47 pm
Location: USA

Re: So you're an atheist? Not so fast.

Post by Ranvier »

Count Lucanor

My original assertion is that: Atheism, non-theism, anti-theism = "confused"

In order not to be "confused" one must know, where one is going. Ex. If we ask someone on the street: "where are you going?" and their reply is "I'm not going to the post office", one may conclude that such individual is "lost" or confused of the question. As the term itself implies "a"/"non"/"anti" (theism), "confused" people have nothing to say about the direction or the path to be taken, other than to say it's not theism. There is no "view" or "perspective" other than a critique of the outlook of others. This debate is not going anywhere because I keep asking for the atheist "stand alone" view or outlook on our reality, which would provide a framework to be considered as an option to follow. However, according to the original assertion, there is no such framework and therefore it's not a "rational" position to be taken. Again, in order not to be confused, one must know where one is going, which gives a purpose for such aim.
Post Reply

Return to “Philosophy of Religion, Theism and Mythology”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021