The Impact of the Natural Afterlife on Religion and Society

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
evolution
Posts: 957
Joined: April 19th, 2020, 6:20 am

Re: The Impact of the Natural Afterlife on Religion and Society

Post by evolution »

Count Lucanor wrote: September 23rd, 2020, 10:50 pm
evolution wrote: September 16th, 2020, 5:17 am

If you said that, are you then NOT at all OPEN to absolutely ANY thing different than that?

If you are NOT OPEN, then WHY NOT?

1. I do NOT do 'debate'.
2. Saying, 'to me', means, to me, the EXACT OPPOSITE of 'closing'.

Saying, 'to me', means being COMPLETELY OPEN, as I am only expressing the views, from my point of view only. And what is obvious is that my personal point of view/s are NOT necessarily the True, Right, and Correct one/s.

If, and when, a statement is being proposed, and it is NOT being made clear that this is just 'from my perspective', 'from my view', nor 'to me' only, then that could be accused as being a claim or proposition of what is said to be actually True, Right, or Correct, and therefore is closed off to ANY thing contrary.

By me pointing out to "others" that what I am saying, claiming or proposing, is what is true, right, and/or correct, 'to me', means that what is actually True, Right, and/or Correct could be some thing else, and which I am completely OPEN to.

See, me saying, 'to me', is NOT implying NOR claiming that what I am saying is actually True, Right, nor Correct, but ONLY what is appears to be true, right, and correct, from what I have previously observed/experienced.
Your phrase 'to me' is meant to emphasize that a particular statement does not leave the domain of your own subjective experience and beliefs.
This is what my phrase 'to me' means, 'to you'.

This is NOT what my phrase 'to me' meant to emphasize AT ALL. Do not forget that I wrote 'it' so I KNOW EXACTLY what was MEANT TO BE EMPHASIZED. Please remember that you are only making ASSUMPTIONS here.

Until you discover, or learn, that what you assume or believe is true, is NOT necessarily true, ESPECIALLY in regards to what "others" say, and what they are MEANING TO EMPHASIZE, then you will continue to write these MOST absurd and ridiculous statements.

See, if you actually clarified FIRST 'with me' what I ACTUALLY MEANT, and meant to empasize, then you would NOT have written this outrageous statement, and nor would you have expressed that TOTALLY CLOSED view of yours here.

You can inform me of WHY what I wrote is wrong, but you can NOT tell me what I MEANT in what I wrote. You can only tell me what you ASSUME I MEANT in what I wrote.
Count Lucanor wrote: September 23rd, 2020, 10:50 pm Since the rational underpinnings of that subjective belief are not accessible to anyone but yourself, then we can conclude that they are enclosed in that domain where only you can manipulate them, they are not offered in debate.
See, once again, you have absolutely NO understanding of what I ACTUALLY MEAN, in what I write. You are , again, ONLY ASSUMING. And WRONGLY, I will add.
Count Lucanor wrote: September 23rd, 2020, 10:50 pm
If they were accessible for all to debate, then they would have stopped being yours only and you would not use the phrase 'to me'.
WRONG AGAIN.

You do NOT KNOW how I define the word 'debate', and you are STILL WRONG in YOUR ASSUMPTION about MY use of the phrase, 'to me'.
Count Lucanor wrote: September 23rd, 2020, 10:50 pm By definition, debate starts at the moment when ideas are liberated from their subjective enclosures and thrown into the public arena of rational discussion, with the purpose of being recognized as objective truths, that is, of being acknowledged valid to rest of the participants (to us).
That is how YOU define the word 'debate'.

I could also write, 'By definition', debate starts with you taking ONE SIDE ONLY of an issue or discussion, and then you fighting or arguing for THAT SIDE ONLY.

If you EVER become curious, I do NOT do this. Therefore, I do NOT do 'debate'.

See, people usually only 'debate' what they ALREADY BELIEVE is true.

And, while people are BELIEVING some thing, then they are NOT open to ANY thing contrary to THAT BELIEF.
Count Lucanor wrote: September 23rd, 2020, 10:50 pm Necessarily, to reach any agreement, there are some common rules to the debate as the use of of logic and facts in arguments.
BUT, 'agreement', itself, is reached in a much more EASIER and SIMPLER way than that.

And, how often does 'debating', itself, end in agreement, anyway?
Count Lucanor wrote: September 23rd, 2020, 10:50 pm Anyone can have any idea about anything and use any arbitrary rules that suits their own needs to justify their own personal beliefs.
Yes they can, and this is one reason WHY I do NOT have any beliefs.
Count Lucanor wrote: September 23rd, 2020, 10:50 pm People can believe anything and say it works for them.
This is true, and WHY I do NOT believe any thing.
Count Lucanor wrote: September 23rd, 2020, 10:50 pm But these beliefs mean nothing to anyone else if they never reach the debate.
BELIEFS mean not much at all, to me, anyway. BELIEFS are NOTHING more than a sign of just how CLOSED OFF a person actually is.
Count Lucanor wrote: September 23rd, 2020, 10:50 pm
evolution wrote: September 16th, 2020, 5:17 am

Does that "without any doubt" close the door to any rational debate, or discussion, or OPEN the door.

See, to me, saying, 'without any doubt', does NOT leave absolutely any room at all for absolutely any thing else.
The evidence that organisms live and die is overwhelming. I haven't heard of any rational mind suggesting otherwise.
And, to you, would hearing otherwise even be possible?
Count Lucanor wrote: September 23rd, 2020, 10:50 pm I mean, not even those that believe other cycles of life come after that, will doubt it. But the evidence of another life after the first one is null, the door has been opened for quite some time, and nothing has come in.
You mean, to you, correct?
Count Lucanor wrote: September 23rd, 2020, 10:50 pm
evolution wrote: September 16th, 2020, 5:17 am

Does saying, "There's only one life", leave 'you' OPEN to having a Truly meaningful, logical, and rational discussions, which might reveal some thing different?
Statements asserted as truths in a debate are open to challenge, that's what debates are for.
Why only 'in debate'?
Count Lucanor wrote: September 23rd, 2020, 10:50 pm If you think you can challenge the statement that there's only one life, nothing stops you from trying.
Have you forgotten what I ACTUALLY SAID?

From what you wrote here it certainly appears that way.
Count Lucanor wrote: September 23rd, 2020, 10:50 pm
evolution wrote: September 16th, 2020, 5:17 am

Wow talk about 'closing the door to any rational debate', or rational discussion.
Again: statements asserted as truths in a debate are open to challenge, that's what debates are for. If you think you can challenge the statement that there's only one life, nothing stops you from trying.
But thee ACTUAL Truth asserts Itself. But only when 'you' are Truly OPEN is when you can SEE and understand this fact.
Count Lucanor wrote: September 23rd, 2020, 10:50 pm
evolution wrote: September 16th, 2020, 5:17 am

Okay. If you say so.

But this is so far from ANY thing I have talked about, or have questioned you about, than I think getting you back on track might be to far gone now.
OK, then we agree that that particular statement of mine remains unchallenged.
Which particular statement of yours?

If that 'particular statement', of yours, is:
Life is a natural phenomenon, which ends in no-life, in death.

Then, I agree that I have not yet seen anyone challenge this statement. But, to me, it does NOT need challenging anyway. As thee Truth speaks for Itself.
Count Lucanor wrote: September 23rd, 2020, 10:50 pm You are also agreeing that you don't support the idea that anything can literally, factually, have a new life cycle after completing the first one.
I suggest that you FIRST CLARIFY, with me, what I actually agree with BEFORE you MAKE ASSUMPTIONS, like you have here, and which, by the way, is TOTALLY WRONG anyway.
evolution
Posts: 957
Joined: April 19th, 2020, 6:20 am

Re: The Impact of the Natural Afterlife on Religion and Society

Post by evolution »

Belindi wrote: September 24th, 2020, 3:45 am
evolution wrote: September 16th, 2020, 6:08 am

Maybe so. But KNOWING thy 'Self' alleviates all of this, completely.

Also, to know 'yourself', one would have to know who and what the thing is that is the one that has a 'self', as well as who and want the 'self' actually is, also.
You have to know your predispositions, abilities, and weaknesses.
People don't 'have' selves. People are selves.
People not 'having' selves, as people are selves is a great point. And, the EXACT SAME one that I was making.

The word or phrase "yourself" is a complete and utter misnomer.

Also, how could 'one' have "their" predisposition, ability, and weakness, when those things are a part of that 'one', or that 'self'?

if people do NOT 'have' selves, and thus ARE selves, then the saying; "your predispositions, abilities, and weaknesses" is also a misnomer, like "your self" is.
evolution
Posts: 957
Joined: April 19th, 2020, 6:20 am

Re: The Impact of the Natural Afterlife on Religion and Society

Post by evolution »

Belindi wrote: September 18th, 2020, 11:53 am
evolution wrote: September 17th, 2020, 8:54 pm

Okay. This is all well and good, but you appear to have completely and utterly missed or misunderstood what I was saying, and meaning.
It's your responsibility to make yourself clear.
I agree TOTALLY.

I also agree that it is my responsibility to find thee 'one', which I want to make thee Self clear to.
Belindi wrote: September 18th, 2020, 11:53 am However I'll try to guess what you mean.
I am not sure if you have heard me say this before or not, but in case you have not; I suggest people first CLARIFY what another actually means, in what they say, BEFORE they even start to begin to make absolutely any assumptions, at all.
Belindi wrote: September 18th, 2020, 11:53 am The self is not an entity. People don't 'have' selfs like they might have dog, or have a full stomach.

Self is defined by that which is not- self. For instance 'me'. I'd say I might be defined partly by my gender( not masculine ) or my hair colour (not black or purple or whatever), or my ignorance of mathematics( not educated in maths), or my popularity (not disliked or hated), or my social status (neither a Queen nor a prisoner and so forth).
Okay, that is what 'you' do. But what thee 'you' actually IS, is different.
Belindi wrote: September 18th, 2020, 11:53 am I feel myself to be myself because my memories are continuous, although if I became demented I might loose my sense of self.
Okay.
Belindi wrote: September 18th, 2020, 11:53 am You will find that anything, event, or idea, of any sort is defined by what it is not.
Okay. But again this is completely and utterly NOT what I was even talking about, let alone meaning.
Belindi
Moderator
Posts: 6105
Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm

Re: The Impact of the Natural Afterlife on Religion and Society

Post by Belindi »

evolution wrote: September 25th, 2020, 7:34 am
Belindi wrote: September 24th, 2020, 3:45 am
You have to know your predispositions, abilities, and weaknesses.
People don't 'have' selves. People are selves.
People not 'having' selves, as people are selves is a great point. And, the EXACT SAME one that I was making.

The word or phrase "yourself" is a complete and utter misnomer.

Also, how could 'one' have "their" predisposition, ability, and weakness, when those things are a part of that 'one', or that 'self'?

if people do NOT 'have' selves, and thus ARE selves, then the saying; "your predispositions, abilities, and weaknesses" is also a misnomer, like "your self" is.
My predispositions, abilities, and weaknesses are empirical facts ,like other facts. And, like with other facts, my knowledge and judgement may be insufficient.
evolution
Posts: 957
Joined: April 19th, 2020, 6:20 am

Re: The Impact of the Natural Afterlife on Religion and Society

Post by evolution »

Belindi wrote: September 25th, 2020, 12:51 pm
evolution wrote: September 25th, 2020, 7:34 am

People not 'having' selves, as people are selves is a great point. And, the EXACT SAME one that I was making.

The word or phrase "yourself" is a complete and utter misnomer.

Also, how could 'one' have "their" predisposition, ability, and weakness, when those things are a part of that 'one', or that 'self'?

if people do NOT 'have' selves, and thus ARE selves, then the saying; "your predispositions, abilities, and weaknesses" is also a misnomer, like "your self" is.
My predispositions, abilities, and weaknesses are empirical facts ,like other facts. And, like with other facts, my knowledge and judgement may be insufficient.
I think you have completely and utterly MISSED or MISUNDERSTOOD the point that I am making here.
Belindi
Moderator
Posts: 6105
Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm

Re: The Impact of the Natural Afterlife on Religion and Society

Post by Belindi »

evolution wrote: September 26th, 2020, 5:47 pm
Belindi wrote: September 25th, 2020, 12:51 pm
My predispositions, abilities, and weaknesses are empirical facts ,like other facts. And, like with other facts, my knowledge and judgement may be insufficient.
I think you have completely and utterly MISSED or MISUNDERSTOOD the point that I am making here.
Is your quarrel with my use of possessive pronouns?
User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 7066
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: The Impact of the Natural Afterlife on Religion and Society

Post by Sculptor1 »

This whole "self" bashing thing is totally incoherent.
User avatar
Count Lucanor
Posts: 2318
Joined: May 6th, 2017, 5:08 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Umberto Eco
Location: Panama
Contact:

Re: The Impact of the Natural Afterlife on Religion and Society

Post by Count Lucanor »

evolution wrote: September 25th, 2020, 7:24 am
Count Lucanor wrote: September 23rd, 2020, 10:50 pm
Your phrase 'to me' is meant to emphasize that a particular statement does not leave the domain of your own subjective experience and beliefs.
This is what my phrase 'to me' means, 'to you'.

This is NOT what my phrase 'to me' meant to emphasize AT ALL. Do not forget that I wrote 'it' so I KNOW EXACTLY what was MEANT TO BE EMPHASIZED. Please remember that you are only making ASSUMPTIONS here.

Until you discover, or learn, that what you assume or believe is true, is NOT necessarily true, ESPECIALLY in regards to what "others" say, and what they are MEANING TO EMPHASIZE, then you will continue to write these MOST absurd and ridiculous statements.

See, if you actually clarified FIRST 'with me' what I ACTUALLY MEANT, and meant to empasize, then you would NOT have written this outrageous statement, and nor would you have expressed that TOTALLY CLOSED view of yours here.

You can inform me of WHY what I wrote is wrong, but you can NOT tell me what I MEANT in what I wrote. You can only tell me what you ASSUME I MEANT in what I wrote.
You just have proved my point, thank you. And that is what is all about: you will say something and with the tricky 'to me' phrase will try to shield it from any criticism. You will always resort to that defense mechanism: "it's my statement, only I can know what it means...etc."
evolution wrote: September 25th, 2020, 7:24 am
Count Lucanor wrote: September 23rd, 2020, 10:50 pm Since the rational underpinnings of that subjective belief are not accessible to anyone but yourself, then we can conclude that they are enclosed in that domain where only you can manipulate them, they are not offered in debate.
See, once again, you have absolutely NO understanding of what I ACTUALLY MEAN, in what I write. You are , again, ONLY ASSUMING. And WRONGLY, I will add.
Proving my point again, thank you.
evolution wrote: September 25th, 2020, 7:24 am
Count Lucanor wrote: September 23rd, 2020, 10:50 pm Anyone can have any idea about anything and use any arbitrary rules that suits their own needs to justify their own personal beliefs.
Yes they can, and this is one reason WHY I do NOT have any beliefs.
All conscious beings have beliefs. Don't you believe you're a conscious being?
The wise are instructed by reason, average minds by experience, the stupid by necessity and the brute by instinct.
― Marcus Tullius Cicero
evolution
Posts: 957
Joined: April 19th, 2020, 6:20 am

Re: The Impact of the Natural Afterlife on Religion and Society

Post by evolution »

Count Lucanor wrote: September 28th, 2020, 11:15 pm
evolution wrote: September 25th, 2020, 7:24 am

This is what my phrase 'to me' means, 'to you'.

This is NOT what my phrase 'to me' meant to emphasize AT ALL. Do not forget that I wrote 'it' so I KNOW EXACTLY what was MEANT TO BE EMPHASIZED. Please remember that you are only making ASSUMPTIONS here.

Until you discover, or learn, that what you assume or believe is true, is NOT necessarily true, ESPECIALLY in regards to what "others" say, and what they are MEANING TO EMPHASIZE, then you will continue to write these MOST absurd and ridiculous statements.

See, if you actually clarified FIRST 'with me' what I ACTUALLY MEANT, and meant to empasize, then you would NOT have written this outrageous statement, and nor would you have expressed that TOTALLY CLOSED view of yours here.

You can inform me of WHY what I wrote is wrong, but you can NOT tell me what I MEANT in what I wrote. You can only tell me what you ASSUME I MEANT in what I wrote.
You just have proved my point, thank you. And that is what is all about: you will say something and with the tricky 'to me' phrase will try to shield it from any criticism.
LOL Your ASSUMING has, ONCE AGAIN, led you completely astray.
Count Lucanor wrote: September 28th, 2020, 11:15 pmYou will always resort to that defense mechanism: "it's my statement, only I can know what it means...etc."
This is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING like thee Truth of things here.

When I say 'to me', in my statements, then that just means that this is my view, which could be wrong or partly wrong, relatively to what is actually True. And NOTHING more.

It certainly means NOTHING like what you are claiming here. In fact, I have consistently suggested just asking me CLARIFYING QUESTIONS if ANY one wants to KNOW my statements ACTUALLY MEAN.
Count Lucanor wrote: September 28th, 2020, 11:15 pm
evolution wrote: September 25th, 2020, 7:24 am

See, once again, you have absolutely NO understanding of what I ACTUALLY MEAN, in what I write. You are , again, ONLY ASSUMING. And WRONGLY, I will add.
Proving my point again, thank you.
LOL What will be found is that the EXACT OPPOSITE is actually True.
Count Lucanor wrote: September 28th, 2020, 11:15 pm
evolution wrote: September 25th, 2020, 7:24 am

Yes they can, and this is one reason WHY I do NOT have any beliefs.
All conscious beings have beliefs.
Okay. If this is what you BELIEVE is true, then there is NOTHING to discuss here, correct?
Count Lucanor wrote: September 28th, 2020, 11:15 pmDon't you believe you're a conscious being?
What the 'you' actually IS, will have to be LOOKED AT, and DISCUSSED, BEFORE 'you' could and would understand my answer to this question.
evolution
Posts: 957
Joined: April 19th, 2020, 6:20 am

Re: The Impact of the Natural Afterlife on Religion and Society

Post by evolution »

Sculptor1 wrote: September 28th, 2020, 9:33 am This whole "self" bashing thing is totally incoherent.
It obviously would be to those who do NOT YET KNOW thy Self.
Belindi
Moderator
Posts: 6105
Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm

Re: The Impact of the Natural Afterlife on Religion and Society

Post by Belindi »

evolution wrote: September 29th, 2020, 2:28 am
Sculptor1 wrote: September 28th, 2020, 9:33 am This whole "self" bashing thing is totally incoherent.
It obviously would be to those who do NOT YET KNOW thy Self.
Evolution, is the Self that dwells within Evolution still a Self when finally it separates from Evolution's brain?
User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 7066
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: The Impact of the Natural Afterlife on Religion and Society

Post by Sculptor1 »

evolution wrote: September 29th, 2020, 2:28 am
Sculptor1 wrote: September 28th, 2020, 9:33 am This whole "self" bashing thing is totally incoherent.
It obviously would be to those who do NOT YET KNOW thy Self.
I said it was incoherent.
Saying that just makes you look ridiculous.
evolution
Posts: 957
Joined: April 19th, 2020, 6:20 am

Re: The Impact of the Natural Afterlife on Religion and Society

Post by evolution »

Sculptor1 wrote: September 29th, 2020, 5:21 am
evolution wrote: September 29th, 2020, 2:28 am

It obviously would be to those who do NOT YET KNOW thy Self.
I said it was incoherent.
Saying that just makes you look ridiculous.
Okay.
evolution
Posts: 957
Joined: April 19th, 2020, 6:20 am

Re: The Impact of the Natural Afterlife on Religion and Society

Post by evolution »

Belindi wrote: September 29th, 2020, 4:19 am
evolution wrote: September 29th, 2020, 2:28 am

It obviously would be to those who do NOT YET KNOW thy Self.
Evolution, is the Self that dwells within Evolution still a Self when finally it separates from Evolution's brain?
Self, capital S, does NOT dwell within human brains, like the self, small s, do.

They are two VERY DIFFERENT things.

And NO self "separates" from brains. When a brain stops functioning, then the self, within that brain, stops existing, within that brain, also.
User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 7066
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: The Impact of the Natural Afterlife on Religion and Society

Post by Sculptor1 »

evolution wrote: September 29th, 2020, 7:52 am
Sculptor1 wrote: September 29th, 2020, 5:21 am

I said it was incoherent.
Saying that just makes you look ridiculous.
Okay.
So you are not going to say what you mean by the general attack on the idea of "self"?

You would rather look ridiculous than share an idea?
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