Putting atheists etc. in jail for rejecting subjectivity

Have philosophical discussions about politics, law, and government.
Featured Article: Definition of Freedom - What Freedom Means to Me
Post Reply
Syamsu
Posts: 2645
Joined: December 9th, 2011, 4:45 pm

Putting atheists etc. in jail for rejecting subjectivity

Post by Syamsu »

Does the government have the right to put people in jail for comitting the original sin of making what is good, loving and beautiful into a matter of fact issue? Does the government have the right to pursue a head vs heart struggle, on behalf of the heart, if the population asks for it?

Original sin is a vice, with possible cataclysmic consequences, but in essence still just a common vice, like some sexual vices.

For putting atheists in jail:

-the right of freedom of expression is significantly undermined in an environment where people make what is good, loving and beautiful into a factual issue.By requiring evidence for all issues opinion is excluded.

-for you to be measured by these people is reasonably considered an insult, just as like identifying somebody by any physical trait is reasonably considered an insult. For somebody to be identified by their red hair is insulting because it ignores who they are as being the owner of their decisions. That is how all racism is insulting also. There is a reasonable case for slander.

-It is a mental health hazard, the vice can be directly related to mental disease. Currently about 50 percent of university students will become seriously depressed during their student career. Obviously, rejecting subjectivity is the catalyst for this epidemic rate of depression.

- original sin is a form of substance abuse, and there already laws against substance abuse. Making what is good, loving and beautiful into a matter of fact releases the body's own drugs called endorfines, to which some of the sinners become heavily addicted to.

- original sin can be construed to be treason when the freedom is under heavy attack like in a war with people who seek to destroy freedom. All who make what is good and evil into a matter of fact also deny freedom is real, which is because subjectivity operates by free will is that they also reject free will is real. In such a war it can be reasonably judged promoting the ideology of a declared enemy, when somebody says free will is not real.

Ofcourse there are also Christians and Muslims who regard what is good, loving and beautiful as a matter of fact issue, and they would be put in jail just as well as the atheists. I don't have a clear insight about how big the problem is among Christians and Muslims. And being an atheist doesn't logically require to reject subjectivity whole, it only rejects one sort of subjectivity. But in reality about 100 percent of atheists reject subjectivity whole, intellectually.

So if the population would say that things have gotten out of hand with original sin, and that they require a period of strict enforcement against it, then what would happen if the government did put atheists in jail for promoting original sin?

The police would come to universities and arrest about 40 percent of professors, when reviewing their writing for promoting original sin. About 99 percent of biologists would be arrested, because they always talk about what is good in the relation to the struggle of survival, and how organisms like to survive and reproduce, as if it is a matter of fact issue.About 60 percent of intellectuals would be arrested and likewise thrown in jail. About 90 percent of all internet forum writers would be put in jail on account of this vice. Certainly 70 percent of politicians would be put in jail for this vice, and socialist / liberal political parties would be nearly wiped out

Seeing as that such a law would put thousands upon thousands in jail, and put a great deal of lawyers and judges in jail too, they would have to take turns going to jail to limit the strain on the legal system.

But it would be true justice. It is how the people have always felt about the heady people in positions of power, that they are somehow more guilty of this original sin than people generally. And indeed they are more guilty, and there is a lot of benefit by putting them in jail. People will have real freedom of expression then, and better emotional relationships with one another. It is right for the government to pursue a generic head vs heart struggle, just as well as these struggles occur individually.
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: Putting atheists etc. in jail for rejecting subjectivity

Post by Steve3007 »

I think the problem of inadequate numbers of prison cells can't be underestimated here. You've suggested solving that problem by jailing the atheists in shifts, but I don't think that would be sufficient. In the UK, for example, there are less than 90,000 prison spaces for a population of over 60 million. And almost all of those are already taken. Since a large proportion of the population identifies itself as atheist and therefore needs to be punished, we'd need many millions more prison spaces. Even in the US, which jails a higher proportion of its population than any other country in the world, I think the number of places would still be woefully inadequate.

For this reason, I think we should at least consider non-custodial sentences, including the possibility of invoking the death sentence for atheism.

Alternatively, it might be best to apply these punishments to just a small number of ring-leaders. I think the Chinese call it: "killing the chicken to scare the monkey." For those millions of people who could be regarded as having offended simply by being lead astray by these ring-leaders, perhaps a system of re-education centres could be established, with punishment inflicted only on those who refuse to attend?
Syamsu
Posts: 2645
Joined: December 9th, 2011, 4:45 pm

Re: Putting atheists etc. in jail for rejecting subjectivity

Post by Syamsu »

Steve3007 wrote:I think the problem of inadequate numbers of prison cells can't be underestimated here. You've suggested solving that problem by jailing the atheists in shifts, but I don't think that would be sufficient. In the UK, for example, there are less than 90,000 prison spaces for a population of over 60 million. And almost all of those are already taken. Since a large proportion of the population identifies itself as atheist and therefore needs to be punished, we'd need many millions more prison spaces. Even in the US, which jails a higher proportion of its population than any other country in the world, I think the number of places would still be woefully inadequate.

For this reason, I think we should at least consider non-custodial sentences, including the possibility of invoking the death sentence for atheism.

Alternatively, it might be best to apply these punishments to just a small number of ring-leaders. I think the Chinese call it: "killing the chicken to scare the monkey." For those millions of people who could be regarded as having offended simply by being lead astray by these ring-leaders, perhaps a system of re-education centres could be established, with punishment inflicted only on those who refuse to attend?
Certainly many professor titles can be revoked. We cannot reasonably say somebody is knowledgeable if they don't even understand free will, and has some knowledge about decisions made. Then they will have to re-educate to get the title again.

The numbers of transgression with a stricter sexual morality would be quite similar. Also traffic violations have similarly high numbers. The offense of original sin being recorded, and then being threatened with jail for a period of time by a lottery will work efficiently. Being threatened with jail is already a punishment, you don't know if you can book your holiday, or start a project, because you might be forced to go to jail.

And ofcourse the law should have a direct result. An immediate change in society, that emotions of people are regarded with more care. An immediate and large upsurge in happiness, because of more meanigful emotional relationships between people. That is the goal of pursuing a societal head vs heart battle, on behalf of the heart.

Think about it, it would simply work. You can reduce original sin through government policy, and the result would be increased happiness of people.
User avatar
Rederic
Posts: 589
Joined: May 30th, 2012, 8:26 am
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell
Location: South coast of England

Re: Putting atheists etc. in jail for rejecting subjectivity

Post by Rederic »

Syamsu wrote:
Steve3007 wrote:I think the problem of inadequate numbers of prison cells can't be underestimated here. You've suggested solving that problem by jailing the atheists in shifts, but I don't think that would be sufficient. In the UK, for example, there are less than 90,000 prison spaces for a population of over 60 million. And almost all of those are already taken. Since a large proportion of the population identifies itself as atheist and therefore needs to be punished, we'd need many millions more prison spaces. Even in the US, which jails a higher proportion of its population than any other country in the world, I think the number of places would still be woefully inadequate.

For this reason, I think we should at least consider non-custodial sentences, including the possibility of invoking the death sentence for atheism.

Alternatively, it might be best to apply these punishments to just a small number of ring-leaders. I think the Chinese call it: "killing the chicken to scare the monkey." For those millions of people who could be regarded as having offended simply by being lead astray by these ring-leaders, perhaps a system of re-education centres could be established, with punishment inflicted only on those who refuse to attend?
I'm beginning to worry about you.

Certainly many professor titles can be revoked. We cannot reasonably say somebody is knowledgeable if they don't even understand free will, and has some knowledge about decisions made. Then they will have to re-educate to get the title again.

The numbers of transgression with a stricter sexual morality would be quite similar. Also traffic violations have similarly high numbers. The offense of original sin being recorded, and then being threatened with jail for a period of time by a lottery will work efficiently. Being threatened with jail is already a punishment, you don't know if you can book your holiday, or start a project, because you might be forced to go to jail.

And ofcourse the law should have a direct result. An immediate change in society, that emotions of people are regarded with more care. An immediate and large upsurge in happiness, because of more meanigful emotional relationships between people. That is the goal of pursuing a societal head vs heart battle, on behalf of the heart.

Think about it, it would simply work. You can reduce original sin through government policy, and the result would be increased happiness of people.
Religion is at its best when it makes us ask hard questions of ourselves.
It is at its worst when it deludes us into thinking we have all the answers for everybody else.
Archibald Macleish.
Keen
Posts: 176
Joined: July 18th, 2010, 3:38 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russel

Re: Putting atheists etc. in jail for rejecting subjectivity

Post by Keen »

Syamsu wrote:-the right of freedom of expression is significantly undermined in an environment where people make what is good, loving and beautiful into a factual issue.By requiring evidence for all issues opinion is excluded.
The right of freedom of expression is even more undermined if you put people in jail based solely on their belief system.
Syamsu wrote: -It is a mental health hazard, the vice can be directly related to mental disease. Currently about 50 percent of university students will become seriously depressed during their student career. Obviously, rejecting subjectivity is the catalyst for this epidemic rate of depression.
Would you mind submitting any kind of proof of that statement?
Syamsu wrote:- original sin is a form of substance abuse, and there already laws against substance abuse. Making what is good, loving and beautiful into a matter of fact releases the body's own drugs called endorfines, to which some of the sinners become heavily addicted to.
Now I am really not sure if you are being serious or not. You release endorphins upon many occasions. When you are falling in love, when you are jogging, most likely when you are having a personal relationship with God... basically whatever sensation of pleasure you feel, it is most likely that your body released endorphins: it's a reward system. On that basis, you would have to ban pretty much anything if you wanted to be consistent.
Syamsu wrote:- original sin can be construed to be treason when the freedom is under heavy attack like in a war with people who seek to destroy freedom. All who make what is good and evil into a matter of fact also deny freedom is real, which is because subjectivity operates by free will is that they also reject free will is real. In such a war it can be reasonably judged promoting the ideology of a declared enemy, when somebody says free will is not real.
It depends what kind of freedom are we talking about. Political freedom and free will are two completely separate issues. If you arrest people on charges of rejecting free will, you are basically against political freedom. Also I'd like to add that not all atheists reject free will.
Syamsu wrote: The police would come to universities and arrest about 40 percent of professors, when reviewing their writing for promoting original sin. About 99 percent of biologists would be arrested, because they always talk about what is good in the relation to the struggle of survival, and how organisms like to survive and reproduce, as if it is a matter of fact issue.About 60 percent of intellectuals would be arrested and likewise thrown in jail. About 90 percent of all internet forum writers would be put in jail on account of this vice. Certainly 70 percent of politicians would be put in jail for this vice, and socialist / liberal political parties would be nearly wiped out
That would make quite a lot of people in jail. What you are suggesting are basically Stalinist practices. Also if you would wipe out most intellectuals in your country, it would experience a major technological regression. I somehow doubt you'd continue to have the internet after your radical 'revolution'.
Syamsu wrote: And of course the law should have a direct result. An immediate change in society, that emotions of people are regarded with more care. An immediate and large upsurge in happiness, because of more meaningful emotional relationships between people. That is the goal of pursuing a societal head vs heart battle, on behalf of the heart.
If you think, that if someone does not believe in free will disregards people's emotions you are clearly wrong. I don't exactly believe in free will, at least not in the sense you seem to and yet I do care for people enough, so that I would not want to see is your kind of witch hunt. Just imagine a little bit the impact your ideas would have. A biology professor is arrested for 'original sin' (whatever you mean by that). Now you have children separated from their father (believe it or not atheists have families too and care about them) and are being told that their father is a "bad man" and must be punished. Do you realize how much heartbreaking moments you would create by you battle for the "heart"? How many people would have to live in fear, that their ideas would somehow get exposed? If you truly cared about people's emotions, you would propose a less radical solution. Putting people in jail is among the most radical and emotion wise destructive one you could have chosen.
User avatar
Neznac
Posts: 1652
Joined: December 4th, 2012, 2:31 pm

Re: Putting atheists etc. in jail for rejecting subjectivity

Post by Neznac »

Syamsu wrote:But it would be true justice. It is how the people have always felt about the heady people in positions of power, that they are somehow more guilty of this original sin than people generally. And indeed they are more guilty, and there is a lot of benefit by putting them in jail. People will have real freedom of expression then, and better emotional relationships with one another. It is right for the government to pursue a generic head vs heart struggle, just as well as these struggles occur individually.
Wow, that's the most horrific solution to a human "problem" (a problem that exists entirely in your own head or heart only) that I've ever encountered. Now I understand better how Stalin and Hitler thought and operated; like their's, your theory is based entirely on paranoia and a basic hatred of people in general!

Thanks for making the case against you complete Syamsu. Maybe we should just put YOU in jail and solve the "problem" right at its source?
Syamsu
Posts: 2645
Joined: December 9th, 2011, 4:45 pm

Re: Putting atheists etc. in jail for rejecting subjectivity

Post by Syamsu »

All that nonsense. It is simply a vice to make what is good, loving and beautiful into a matter of fact. A vice which can be reduced through government policy. The truth is that freedom of religion and opinion is significantly harmed by the scores of atheists who have no appreciation for the fragility of the emotinal basis of belief in God, and opinions generally. Atheists generally don't care about opinions, they are always rude, and they always directly seek to destroy people's emotions, because they are against subjectivity as a valid way of reaching a conclusion. They are merely scoffers, and they can be put in jail for that, that is justice. Most of you belong in jail, that would put your life in a more realistic perspective, where you make choices, and subjectivity matters. How we feel about what you are doing matters, and those feelings of justice put you all in jail.

Again, it is no coincedence that the one theory in science associated to atheism, evolution theory, talks about everything in terms of good and bad, differential reproductive succes, as if it is a matter of fact. Gravity theory isn't based around succes, thermodynamics isn't based around succes. Atheists are high on knowledge of good and evil, that is why they promote evolution theory.
User avatar
Neznac
Posts: 1652
Joined: December 4th, 2012, 2:31 pm

Re: Putting atheists etc. in jail for rejecting subjectivity

Post by Neznac »

Syamsu wrote:All that nonsense. It is simply a vice to make what is good, loving and beautiful into a matter of fact. A vice which can be reduced through government policy. The truth is that freedom of religion and opinion is significantly harmed by the scores of atheists who have no appreciation for the fragility of the emotinal basis of belief in God, and opinions generally. Atheists generally don't care about opinions, they are always rude, and they always directly seek to destroy people's emotions, because they are against subjectivity as a valid way of reaching a conclusion. They are merely scoffers, and they can be put in jail for that, that is justice. Most of you belong in jail, that would put your life in a more realistic perspective, where you make choices, and subjectivity matters. How we feel about what you are doing matters, and those feelings of justice put you all in jail.
If I ask you why you find something beautiful, am I trying to get a fact out of you or an opinion? Well, same goes for everybody else, whether you like it or not!
Syamsu wrote:Again, it is no coincedence that the one theory in science associated to atheism, evolution theory, talks about everything in terms of good and bad, differential reproductive succes, as if it is a matter of fact. Gravity theory isn't based around succes, thermodynamics isn't based around succes. Atheists are high on knowledge of good and evil, that is why they promote evolution theory.
C'mon Syamsu, the "good" in the sense of success in evolution theory has nothing whatsoever to do with moral ideas of good and evil. You're misrepresenting science completely! Are you this confused in everything you conclude about reality?
Syamsu
Posts: 2645
Joined: December 9th, 2011, 4:45 pm

Re: Putting atheists etc. in jail for rejecting subjectivity

Post by Syamsu »

Neznac wrote: C'mon Syamsu, the "good" in the sense of success in evolution theory has nothing whatsoever to do with moral ideas of good and evil. You're misrepresenting science completely! Are you this confused in everything you conclude about reality?
Ofcourse evolution theory is not a proper moral theory. But that is just it, the theory is designed to destroy all proper moral theory based on opinion, and replace it with moral theory based on fact.

Darwin wrote a whole book about emotions, saying he could measure them as objective matter of fact. And that Darwinists presently made the term "selfishness" into an objective technical term, that is no coincedence. It is a systematic attempt to destroy all subjectivity by replacing it with objectivity. There is lots and lots of evidence of it that this is how natural selection theory is interpreted by the most learned evolution scientists themselves. They propose it is a fact that organisms love life, like to survive, like to reproduce, and in everything else they write they follow this logic that they can measure love as a matter of scientific fact.
Vijaydevani
Posts: 2116
Joined: March 28th, 2014, 3:13 am

Re: Putting atheists etc. in jail for rejecting subjectivity

Post by Vijaydevani »

So my soul does not have the right to choose objectivity and reject subjectivity? There are limitations to the soul?
A little knowledge is a religious thing.
Syamsu
Posts: 2645
Joined: December 9th, 2011, 4:45 pm

Re: Putting atheists etc. in jail for rejecting subjectivity

Post by Syamsu »

Vijaydevani wrote:So my soul does not have the right to choose objectivity and reject subjectivity? There are limitations to the soul?
Tell it to the judge.
User avatar
Neznac
Posts: 1652
Joined: December 4th, 2012, 2:31 pm

Re: Putting atheists etc. in jail for rejecting subjectivity

Post by Neznac »

Syamsu wrote:Ofcourse evolution theory is not a proper moral theory. But that is just it, the theory is designed to destroy all proper moral theory based on opinion, and replace it with moral theory based on fact.

Darwin wrote a whole book about emotions, saying he could measure them as objective matter of fact. And that Darwinists presently made the term "selfishness" into an objective technical term, that is no coincedence. It is a systematic attempt to destroy all subjectivity by replacing it with objectivity. There is lots and lots of evidence of it that this is how natural selection theory is interpreted by the most learned evolution scientists themselves. They propose it is a fact that organisms love life, like to survive, like to reproduce, and in everything else they write they follow this logic that they can measure love as a matter of scientific fact.
You are obviously very paranoid about the intentions of scientists and especially of Charles Darwin himself, in that context you understand absolutely nothing! This kind of "conspiracy theory" thinking is exactly the reason why most people put very little confidence in opinions, as such, because they are often far fetched, incorrect, exaggerated, filled with biased evaluations, etc.. Of course this does not mean that I am REJECTING your very delusional subjectivity, I'm simply rejecting the content (the linguistic value) of your thoughts as bizarre, irrational, fictional interpretations of reality. But I accept that you have the right and the freedom to express these mendacity-filled thoughts/opinions! I thoroughly accept your subjectivity!

I'm embracing your subjectivity with all the love in my heart Syamsu. You're a very dear soul with complicated core-textual deformities, but you are an evolved primate like the rest of us, just slightly less rational.
User avatar
Theophane
Posts: 2349
Joined: May 25th, 2013, 9:03 am
Favorite Philosopher: C.S. Lewis
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: Putting atheists etc. in jail for rejecting subjectivity

Post by Theophane »

This thread title reads like a strawman. "Rejecting subjectivity" is nebulous and really doesn't mean anything other than what is read into it. A brutal dictatorship (a theocracy, perhaps) would have abandoned any pretense of democracy and would thus imprison its own citizens without having to make it seem legit to anyone. Only a dictatorship still pretending to be democratic would make up nonsense charges like "rejecting subjectivity." If you live in a place where acceptance of the official Party lifestyle and official Party thoughts is all that's keeping you out of Room 101, the Thought Police won't bother to disguise what they're doing as just.
Syamsu
Posts: 2645
Joined: December 9th, 2011, 4:45 pm

Re: Putting atheists etc. in jail for rejecting subjectivity

Post by Syamsu »

Neznac wrote:
Syamsu wrote:Ofcourse evolution theory is not a proper moral theory. But that is just it, the theory is designed to destroy all proper moral theory based on opinion, and replace it with moral theory based on fact.

Darwin wrote a whole book about emotions, saying he could measure them as objective matter of fact. And that Darwinists presently made the term "selfishness" into an objective technical term, that is no coincedence. It is a systematic attempt to destroy all subjectivity by replacing it with objectivity. There is lots and lots of evidence of it that this is how natural selection theory is interpreted by the most learned evolution scientists themselves. They propose it is a fact that organisms love life, like to survive, like to reproduce, and in everything else they write they follow this logic that they can measure love as a matter of scientific fact.
You are obviously very paranoid about the intentions of scientists and especially of Charles Darwin himself, in that context you understand absolutely nothing! This kind of "conspiracy theory" thinking is exactly the reason why most people put very little confidence in opinions, as such, because they are often far fetched, incorrect, exaggerated, filled with biased evaluations, etc.. Of course this does not mean that I am REJECTING your very delusional subjectivity, I'm simply rejecting the content (the linguistic value) of your thoughts as bizarre, irrational, fictional interpretations of reality. But I accept that you have the right and the freedom to express these mendacity-filled thoughts/opinions! I thoroughly accept your subjectivity!

I'm embracing your subjectivity with all the love in my heart Syamsu. You're a very dear soul with complicated core-textual deformities, but you are an evolved primate like the rest of us, just slightly less rational.
Obviously you understand nothing about very common head vs heart struggles, and how it is a vice to replace opinion with fact.

It can very easily be demonstrated that evolutionists are systematically rejecting subjectivity, by reviewing their own words and stated intentions. I wish biologists wouldn't use words such as "love", "hate", "selfishness", and change their meaning from subjective to objective, but the fact is that they are doing that, all of them. And you can see that evolutionists explicitly conceive of it as their job to rule out all subjective notions like the spirit, or soul. They proceed then, to either reject the existence of the spirit, for lack of evidence, or to denote some measurable things as being spirit. The agenda behind this is quite plain and upfront, it is simply what they state is their intention. It is no coincedence that the idea about selfish genes is promoted by flaming atheists, there is pattern behind that of replacing subjectivity with objectivity. Atheists reject the subjectivity of belief in God, they proceed to reject the subjectivity of selfishness, they simply are on a campain against all subjectivity, quite plainly explictly saying that all faith is wrong, because it is faith.

-- Updated June 24th, 2014, 3:48 am to add the following --
Theophane wrote:This thread title reads like a strawman. "Rejecting subjectivity" is nebulous and really doesn't mean anything other than what is read into it. A brutal dictatorship (a theocracy, perhaps) would have abandoned any pretense of democracy and would thus imprison its own citizens without having to make it seem legit to anyone. Only a dictatorship still pretending to be democratic would make up nonsense charges like "rejecting subjectivity." If you live in a place where acceptance of the official Party lifestyle and official Party thoughts is all that's keeping you out of Room 101, the Thought Police won't bother to disguise what they're doing as just.
But how the law would work out in reality is that such a law would address the widespread moral deprivation among the people in power. There has been a longstanding suspicion that many of those in power do not deal with emotions properly, that they are disproportionally coldhearted and calculating compared to the population in general. This law addresses that issue.

It would not be easy for a policy which requires the acknowledgement of free will, to be twisted to support a dictatorship.
Keen
Posts: 176
Joined: July 18th, 2010, 3:38 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russel

Re: Putting atheists etc. in jail for rejecting subjectivity

Post by Keen »

Syamsu wrote: It would not be easy for a policy which requires the acknowledgement of free will, to be twisted to support a dictatorship.
Actually, as soon as you start arresting people on basis of their beliefs instead of their actions, you are already on a good way towards a dictatorship, since you are already violating one of the most fundamental freedoms: freedom of expression. People should have as much freedom to express their views of "rejecting subjectivity" as you have to oppose them in that, but as soon as one side legislates a law that would allow to arrest the other, they are violating people's fundamental rights.
Syamsu wrote: And that Darwinists presently made the term "selfishness" into an objective technical term, that is no coincedence. It is a systematic attempt to destroy all subjectivity by replacing it with objectivity. There is lots and lots of evidence of it that this is how natural selection theory is interpreted by the most learned evolution scientists themselves. They propose it is a fact that organisms love life, like to survive, like to reproduce, and in everything else they write they follow this logic that they can measure love as a matter of scientific fact
I'm not a biologist and I suspect neither are you, but it seems to me, that your view of evolution is quite naive. Most organisms don't "like" to reproduce, they simply do, because if they didn't, they wouldn't be there in the first place. It is just a little easier, especially for straw men to think of the genes as if they were conscious, because we humans have tendency to project our feelings onto things.

I'd however be interesting in your explanation, why do you think "rejecting subjectivity" is bad. You have been stating that all along, but never gave any real reasons besides freedom of expression in which you are obviously wrong, because nobody denies you the right to express your thoughts. The very fact, that I am an atheist and yet I am still interested on hearing what you have to say proves you wrong on your idea, that all atheists want to undermine your freedoms, which is a very paranoid one if you ask me.
Post Reply

Return to “Philosophy of Politics”

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