Atheist opinion polls in America

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.
Eduk
Posts: 2466
Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
Favorite Philosopher: Socrates

Re: Atheist opinion polls in America

Post by Eduk »

Ah I understand now. I think theists beliefs (pertaining to their theism) are hard to generalise. Atheists are defined by not believing in God (normally the Christian God, but really it's all of them). So you could say all atheists don't believe in God as a general rule. So in this sense Atheist beliefs are trivial to generalise. Of course not all atheists would agree with the definition or understand clearly the definition and what it means, so even here generalisation becomes a problem (isn't that just typical of humans).
Now on the face of it it might seem straight forward to generalise theists. But I'm not really convinced here, a theists might claim for example that God is eternal, infinite and that they follow the bible. But eternity and infinity are undefined and each theist is likely to have different interpretations of what those claims mean, if they have even considered them at all. The bible is inconsistent, self contradictory, has been translated and re-translated many times and is open to interpretation. Again each theist has their own personal opinion of what the bible does or doesn't say. Personally I would theists are much harder to generalise than atheists (on their theist claims) but only because the atheist only makes one claim.

-- Updated June 8th, 2017, 6:02 am to add the following --

I should have mentioned all theists also have an atheist claim against all religions other than the one they have. If anything you could say that not believing in Zeus but believing in Christian God was a stronger claim against Zeus than simply not believing in either.
Unknown means unknown.
Gertie
Posts: 2181
Joined: January 7th, 2015, 7:09 am

Re: Atheist opinion polls in America

Post by Gertie »

Judaka

To expand on that, I think that compromise is not a rational middle ground but basically the middle ground that we can agree upon. If I take my value in liberty and one takes their value of censorship and we split it half-way, the result is not the most rational and it might not even make sense but if neither will acquiesce their position then nothing else can be done about it. All we can do is try to solve problems in a way that the most people can accept and so in my view that means finding solutions to problems that avoid the point of contention. We get as much of what people want and limit what people don't want wherever possible and where that isn't possible a culture war will occur and eventually one side will win. None of this costs the individual their ability to pursue their own advancement and there is no paradox. It is more paradoxical to believe that everyone can have what they want by finding out the best answers when there will never be anything that is the best option for everyone.

Does it concern you that this approach could result in Might is Right, and/or 'tyranny of the majority' outcomes? That was my first thought. Would you see a need for some counterbalance, like a notion of Rights?

-- Updated June 8th, 2017, 12:27 pm to add the following --

EDIT - first para is obviously me quoting you Judaka, I forgot the quote tags.
Fooloso4
Posts: 3601
Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm

Re: Atheist opinion polls in America

Post by Fooloso4 »

DM:
The observer cannot be the thing observed …
That is correct.
… evaluation demands some degree of transcendence of the thing which is evaluated.
The evaluation must be from a human perspective and therefore is limited to human ways of seeing and judging and knowing.
To attempt to understand something presumes it can be understood …
Right, but that assumption may be wrong. We can understand it in ways that are limited to human perspectives. We cannot know them as they are in themselves but only as they show themselves to us, that is, phenomenally.
… but in order to be understood, logic requires that between the observer and the observed there be a unifying principle that transcends yet includes both …
All that is required is the ability of the observer to make a judgment about the observed. To use one of Wittgenstein’s favorite techniques, suppose there is a tribe that discovers a tree with fruits on it that several of the hungry members eat and get sick. It may take several rounds before someone makes the connection. Once the connection is made it is understood not to eat this fruit. There is no unifying principle that transcends yet includes both the tribe and the fruit. They have learned from experience. It is said that it was once thought that tomatoes are poisonous. People understood that they should not eat this fruit. But as we know they were mistaken.
… whether it's Mind, the physical laws of nature, or something else.
Mind with a capital M is a metaphysical assumption. John Dewey gives a succinct summary of this assumption in a paper on Darwinian evolution. He points to the Greeks and the idea that since the world is intelligible there must be an intelligent source, Mind, that creates an intelligible world intelligible to the mind of man. The history of science, however, gradually undermines this assumption. Evolution provides the final step in showing how things, including intelligent animals, develop through natural processes.
The mind of man makes connections between one thing and another, it draws inferences, forms and tests hypotheses. At any given point what is said to be known and understood may turn out to be wrong. It is a process of trial and error.

The physical laws of nature are not a unifying principle. What is the unifying principle that transcends both the observer and an understanding of the laws of nature?
Your intransigence on the matter …
It is not intransigence. If you make a claim that there is a unifying principle then you need to provide evidence or a persuasive argument for it. You have not.
… Richard Lewton …
Science attempts to understand the natural world in natural terms. The introduction of the supernatural amounts to abandoning the project. The best defense of this procedure is its obvious success.
If people can cling to beliefs that are irrational, they can also cling to irrational disbelief.
This is evidently true, but whether any particular disbelief is irrational needs to be determined in a case by case basis.

I think it important for this discussion to understand Zhuangzi’s “three in the morning”. To do so requires seeing how a distinction without a difference applies to those who exhaust the spirit trying to illuminate the unity of things.
Dark Matter
Posts: 1366
Joined: August 18th, 2016, 11:29 am
Favorite Philosopher: Paul Tillich

Re: Atheist opinion polls in America

Post by Dark Matter »

Eduk wrote: I should have mentioned all theists also have an atheist claim against all religions other than the one they have. If anything you could say that not believing in Zeus but believing in Christian God was a stronger claim against Zeus than simply not believing in either.
This would also be true if all theists were talking about a being alongside other beings like Zeus, but they're not. Broadly speaking, theism is divided into two main camps: theistic personalism and classical theism. In a debate about "God," atheists invariably talk about the former or rest their case on the proposition that there is no "unifying principle" even though positing it is utilizing the very principle they are denying. They have no choice in the matter, for to admit to such a principle is to let the divine foot in the door. This is the reason for my claim that atheists tend to be shallow and superficial. They don't like it and find it insulting, but it is no less so than many of the claims they make about theists -- like comparing God to Santa or Zeus or the tooth fairy.
Eduk
Posts: 2466
Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
Favorite Philosopher: Socrates

Re: Atheist opinion polls in America

Post by Eduk »

I'm sorry Dark Matter, although I have read all your posts on this topic (and many posts on other topics) I still have no idea what your religious views are. I've asked you a number of times if you could give me some practical examples of the kinds of decisions that you make based on your beliefs, but so far you either haven't responded or I haven't understood the response.
You are a good example of someone who's religious beliefs would not be easy to generalise. You seem to be attempting to describe a personal religion that exists no where else on earth (although you claim all sorts of other religions prove your point, I'm not sure those religions would agree with you?). Also you seem to believe in the Christian God? Although not the Christian God as defined by the bible or that other Christians might say is a normative definition?
Theism is defined as belief in the existence of God or Gods (normally). Of course you could say there is a creator but they aren't a being. But then aren't you saying that your creator isn't a being? Doesn't that automatically mean the Bible is not correct? Again defining things by what they are not is great, my car is not invisible, what colour is my car?
Also when you say unifying principle, is that another word for God in your language? I don't understand what your unifying principle is,

-- Updated June 8th, 2017, 12:23 pm to add the following --

Also, what's wrong with Zeus?
Unknown means unknown.
Fanman
Posts: 3258
Joined: December 14th, 2011, 9:42 am

Re: Atheist opinion polls in America

Post by Fanman »

Eduk,

I think you provide some good clarification. On a level below the surface of theism (the common practices) generalisation of theists is difficult, for the reasons that you mention. Although we group or classify people as “theists” individually they may (and do) hold different beliefs and interpretations of their religions and about God.

-- Updated June 8th, 2017, 3:01 pm to add the following --

Also, just an idea. Could the cycle of life be a unifying principle between the observer and the observed that transcends yet includes both? In that, both the observer and the observed are part of the cycle of life. Yet, the cycle of life also transcends them both because it will continue after both the observer and the observed have ceased to exist?
Theists believe, agnostics ponder and atheists analyse. A little bit of each should get us the right answer.
Dark Matter
Posts: 1366
Joined: August 18th, 2016, 11:29 am
Favorite Philosopher: Paul Tillich

Re: Atheist opinion polls in America

Post by Dark Matter »

Eduk wrote:I'm sorry Dark Matter, although I have read all your posts on this topic (and many posts on other topics) I still have no idea what your religious views are.

It's a work in progress, although I think I have made it clear enough that I am solidly in the classical theist camp. Nevertheless, religious beliefs are really just the outward expression of one's relationship with the Whole. No one "owns" their beliefs; that's not who they are.
I've asked you a number of times if you could give me some practical examples of the kinds of decisions that you make based on your beliefs, but so far you either haven't responded or I haven't understood the response.
I do not live independently from my religion. To isolate part of life and call it religion is to disintegrate life and to distort religion.
You are a good example of someone who's religious beliefs would not be easy to generalise. You seem to be attempting to describe a personal religion that exists no where else on earth (although you claim all sorts of other religions prove your point, I'm not sure those religions would agree with you?). Also you seem to believe in the Christian God? Although not the Christian God as defined by the bible or that other Christians might say is a normative definition?
Very good. :)

Religion is an intensely private affair so there are as many vehicles for religion (beliefs) as there are people on the planet and some are more unique than others.
Theism is defined as belief in the existence of God or Gods (normally). Of course you could say there is a creator but they aren't a being. But then aren't you saying that your creator isn't a being?
Yes. That's exactly what I'm saying. Paul Tillich is perhaps best known for saying, "God does not exist, but is existence itself."
Doesn't that automatically mean the Bible is not correct? Again defining things by what they are not is great, my car is not invisible, what colour is my car?
I've posted these links before. They may explain why atheists seem to insist that theism be understood only in terms of referring to a being.

In Defense of Classical Theism

The one theology book all atheists really should read
Also when you say unifying principle, is that another word for God in your language?
That's certainly what atheists would prefer that's what I mean because it would be a whole hell of a lot easier for them to dismiss it. But, no. A principle is "a fundamental truth or proposition that serves as the foundation for a system of belief or behavior or for a chain of reasoning." Philosophical Principles
Also, what's wrong with Zeus?
the same thing that's with the Santa analogy.
Fooloso4
Posts: 3601
Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm

Re: Atheist opinion polls in America

Post by Fooloso4 »

DM:
They may explain why atheists seem to insist that theism be understood only in terms of referring to a being.

In Defense of Classical Theism
The article contains the following:
On classical theism, God is the most fundamental reality, and just is subsistent being itself.
Can you explain what you think subsistent being means?
A principle is "a fundamental truth or proposition that serves as the foundation for a system of belief or behavior or for a chain of reasoning.
This is not what a principle means in Daoism. See your post #201.
Eduk
Posts: 2466
Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
Favorite Philosopher: Socrates

Re: Atheist opinion polls in America

Post by Eduk »

I do not live independently from my religion. To isolate part of life and call it religion is to disintegrate life and to distort religion.
I didn't ask to you. Although human's do compartmentalise beliefs very well, but that's by the by.
I was just trying to work out what kinds of things you believe in relation to your religious beliefs. For example you may or may not go to church. As an atheist you might go to church because you like it there, you value the community, you feel it is a responsibility, you don't want to hurt others. These are all beliefs that an atheist and theist can have without contradiction. But an atheist wouldn't go to church because they believed God wanted them to but a theist might well do that. This is why I was asking for real world examples, I don't understand why it's so hard to give any?
solidly in the classical theist camp
Which classical theist camp? You don't seem to be? Don't the majority of Christian's believe God is a being? I mean you can argue they are interpreting incorrectly that's fine, but you can't say you are both classical and disagree with classical beliefs?
A principle is "a fundamental truth or proposition that serves as the foundation for a system of belief or behavior or for a chain of reasoning
Yes but I'm trying to explain that I have no idea what the proposition is, or what chain of reasoning would follow. I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, I'm trying to ask questions so that I can understand. Let us imagine that I wanted to agree with you and someone asked me what the unifying principle is. I would say, it includes the observer and observed and it is God whom we are made of? God observes itself? God isn't a being? So someone then might say 'ok, so what?'. At this point I would be stumped, should I recommend they become a Christian and go to church? do I tell them the Bible is God's word? Am I for or against abortion? Do I like homosexuals? Do I believe God provides ethics? Do I believe in a afterlife? Do I think we will all be judged? Honestly I have no idea what conclusions to draw. You can call the universe God but I don't get how that alone makes any difference? You need to give God properties, like benevolence. You then need to demonstrate those properties beyond reasonable doubt. You have to show that the conclusions of your theory work?

Finally I don't get what's up with Zeus. Ok you could argue no one is saying Santa is actually real (at least no adults), he's a recognised work of fiction. I wasn't comparing belief in Santa with a belief in God. I was comparing belief in Zeus with a belief in Christian God, people really used to believe in Zeus. Does it matter that they don't now? If no one believed in your religion would that mean it wasn't true anymore? Feel free to replace Zeus with any God or creator that you don't believe in but that other people do.
Unknown means unknown.
Fooloso4
Posts: 3601
Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm

Re: Atheist opinion polls in America

Post by Fooloso4 »

Eduk:
Which classical theist camp? You don't seem to be? Don't the majority of Christian's believe God is a being? I mean you can argue they are interpreting incorrectly that's fine, but you can't say you are both classical and disagree with classical beliefs?
Hence my question about what DM thinks subsistent being means as it is used in the article he cites. I will wait for his response, if it is forthcoming, before saying more.
Dark Matter
Posts: 1366
Joined: August 18th, 2016, 11:29 am
Favorite Philosopher: Paul Tillich

Re: Atheist opinion polls in America

Post by Dark Matter »

You will have a long wait. I give up.

-- Updated June 10th, 2017, 1:45 pm to add the following --

If you were interested, you'd do your own research.
Fooloso4
Posts: 3601
Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm

Re: Atheist opinion polls in America

Post by Fooloso4 »

DM:
You will have a long wait. I give up.
-- Updated June 10th, 2017, 1:45 pm to add the following --
If you were interested, you'd do your own research.
The question is about what the term means for you. I can understand why you are reluctant to discuss it. To do so would expose a contradiction in your claims.

I discussed the question of being in post #1977 in the topic “If there is a God why is there Evil” and how Thomas Aquinas takes his bearings from Aristotle. I have reposted the relevant parts at the bottom of this post.

Aquinas says that God is “Ipsum esse subsistens”, which translates as subsistent being. He says:
Whatever belongs to something is either caused by the principles of its nature, like risibility in man, or accrues to it from some extrinsic principle, like the light in the air which is caused by the sun. It is impossible that the act of existing itself be caused by the form or quiddity -- and by "caused" I mean as by an efficient cause -- for then something would be the cause of itself and produce itself in existence which is impossible. It is therefore necessary that everything whose act of existing is other than its nature have its act of existing from another. And because everything which exists through another is reduced to that which exists through itself, as to a first cause, there must be something which causes all things to exist, inasmuch as it is subsistent existence alone. Otherwise we would proceed to infinity in causes, since everything which is not a subsistent act of existing has a cause for its act of existing, as we have just said. It is evident, therefore, that an intelligence is form and an act of existing, and that it has its act of existing from the First Being which is (simply) existence only; and this it the First Cause, God.(Aquinas On Being and Essence, chapter 4)
If we are to take Aquinas as representative of classical theism then God is the “First Being”. He distinguishes between the being of God and composite or dependent beings whose existence depends on God.

The confusion may at least in part be due to the claim of Plotinus that the One is beyond being. Plotinus follows Plato rather than Aristotle. Plato describes the Good itself as the cause of and beyond being.

Confusion also arises with the claim that God is not a being but being itself. What “being itself” means can be interpreted in different ways. With regard to Aquinas, I take it to mean that God is not a contingent being. This does not mean that God is not a being but that God is the First or preeminent or Supreme Being and that God’s being differs from all other beings that are dependent upon God.

Post #1977 from the topic “If there is a God why is there Evil”:
I should preface this by saying that Aquinas held that reason can never penetrate the truths that can only be revealed. On my reading (which is not original) Aristotle too was aware of the limits of reason but worked to protect philosophy from the claims of revealed truths.

The question, “is God a being?”, led me back to Aristotle’s Metaphysics and what he calls “first philosophy”, and, interestingly enough “theology”. It is the study of “being qua being”. It seeks to know the causes and principles of being, that is, of substance (ousiai). Substance is the “the what it was to be” of a thing. This was translated in Latin as, essentia, a term invented to translate the Greek, meaning “the what it is”. Substance, according Aristotle, is not matter or what stands under something, but rather, what it is to be what it is.

Aristotle says that being is not a genus, and Aquinas reaffirms this. What this means can be illustrated as follows: Life is the genus of living things but life is not itself a living thing. If being is the genus of beings then being itself would not be a being. But,according to both Aristotle and Aquinas, being is not a genus. The question of the being of beings for Aristotle is the question of the causes and principles of being. The answer cannot be being, but not because the being of beings is not a being, but because the same question could be asked of the being who is the being of being . With Aquinas, however, God is the cause of beings.Where Aristotle held that the universe is without beginning, Aquinas follows the teaching of creation as ex nihilo. And so, for Aquinas the answer is to the question of cause of beings is the uncaused being, the supreme being, God. What God is (his essence) is his own being [quod Deus est sit suum esse].

That God is “being itself” does not mean that being is God, for if being is God then all that is is God. Now there are some who hold this position, but Aquinas did not. All other things are contingent beings, including composite beings, not being itself. Their existence is not their essence.
Dark Matter
Posts: 1366
Joined: August 18th, 2016, 11:29 am
Favorite Philosopher: Paul Tillich

Re: Atheist opinion polls in America

Post by Dark Matter »

So what?
Fooloso4
Posts: 3601
Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm

Re: Atheist opinion polls in America

Post by Fooloso4 »

DM:
So what?
If according the classical theism God is the “First Being” and you identify yourself as “solidly in the classical theist camp” and yet deny that God is a being and fault atheists for “insist[ing] that theism be understood only in terms of referring to a being” then you can feign indifference to the contradictions, but both theists and atheists who value the principles of logic and reason have good reason to question it.
Dark Matter
Posts: 1366
Joined: August 18th, 2016, 11:29 am
Favorite Philosopher: Paul Tillich

Re: Atheist opinion polls in America

Post by Dark Matter »

The scholastics were right when they asserted that in God there is no difference between essence and existence. But they perverted their insight when in spite of this assertion they spoke of the existence of God and tried to argue in favor of it. Actually they did not mean “existence.” They meant the reality, the validity, the truth of the idea of God, an idea which did not carry the connotation of something or someone who might or might not exist. ...God does not exist. He is being-itself beyond essence and existence. Therefore, to argue that God exists is to deny him.

The method of arguing through a conclusion also contradicts the idea of God. Every argument derives conclusions from something that is given about something that is sought. In arguments for the existence of God the world is given and God is sought. Some characteristics of the world make the conclusion “God” necessary. God is derived from the world. This does not mean that God is dependent on the world. Thomas Aquinas is correct when he rejects such an interpretation and asserts that what is first in itself may be last for our knowledge. But, if we derive God from the world, he cannot be that which transcends the world infinitely.

-- Updated June 10th, 2017, 5:01 pm to add the following --
The question of God is possible because an awareness of God is present in the question of God. This awareness precedes the question. It is not the result of the argument but its presupposition. This certainly means that the “argument” is no argument at all. The so-called ontological argument points to the ontological structure of finitude. It shows that an awareness of the infinite is included in man’s awareness of finitude. Man knows that he is finite, that he is excluded from an infinity which nevertheless belongs to him. He is aware of his potential infinity while being aware of his actual finitude. If he were what he essentially is, if his potentiality were identical with his actuality, the question of the infinite would not arise. Mythologically speaking, Adam before the fall was in an essential, though untested and undecided, unity with God. But this is not man’s situation, nor is it the situation of anything that exists. Man must ask about the infinite from which he is estranged, although it belongs to him; he must ask about that which gives him the courage to take his anxiety upon himself. And he can ask this double question because the awareness of his potential infinity is included in his awareness of his finitude.
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