Nexus Book Club


Nexus Book Club

A group for those of us who like reading and books. Fiction, non-fiction, drama, poetry... everything goes.

Members: 825
Latest Activity: Dec 3

Welcome to the Nexus Book Club!

Hello to all our new (and old) members! We'd love to hear from you; please take the time to introduce yourself either on the forum or the wall.

Feel free to discuss the books you're reading at the moment, your favorite authors or works, and so on. I'm sure everyone has a book they think others here might find interesting!

Also, don't forget to check out the page Books by A|N Members Who are Published Authors, located just under the members section on your right.

Books of Interest to Atheists and Skeptics
Breaking The Spell by Daniel Dennett
A Devil's Chaplain, by Richard Dawkins
The End of Faith, by Sam Harris
The God Delusion, by Richard Dawkins
God is Not Great, by Christopher Hitchens
Godless, by Dan Barker
Letter to a Christian Nation, by Sam Harris
Why I am not a Christian, by Bertrand Russell

Sites for Bibliotaphs
The Internet Archive
Project Gutenburg

Discussion Forum

New books on the secular life

Started by Nick Bottom. Last reply by Randall Smith Oct 23. 1 Reply

Haruki Murakami

Started by Nick Bottom. Last reply by Michael Mann Sep 7. 1 Reply


Started by Don. Last reply by Don Aug 31. 4 Replies

top 10

Started by Jeffrey. Last reply by Nick Bottom Aug 23. 17 Replies

Top 5 Books on Atheism

Started by Steph S.. Last reply by Kosak Grabovsky Dec 15, 2013. 1 Reply

The Drunkard's Walk: How Randomness Rules Our Lives, by Leonard Mlodinow

Started by A Former Member. Last reply by Keith Brian Johnson Jun 16, 2013. 5 Replies

Atheism books (beyond Hitchens, Dawkins, & Harris)

Started by Dr. Thoss. Last reply by Kelli Evans Nov 24, 2012. 52 Replies

Robert Jordan "Wheel of Time" fans?

Started by Jenn Wiffen. Last reply by Joseph P Sep 10, 2012. 1 Reply

Why do they all have "happy endings"

Started by Cory D Wells. Last reply by Kosak Grabovsky Jul 24, 2012. 3 Replies

Currently Reading: American Gods by Neil Gaiman

Started by The Big Blue Frog. Last reply by Cory D Wells Jul 24, 2012. 8 Replies

Raven’s Gate, by Anthony Horowitz

Started by A Former Member May 18, 2012. 0 Replies

Comment Wall


You need to be a member of Nexus Book Club to add comments!

Comment by Joseph P on December 28, 2010 at 7:20pm


Paragraph 6:  According to Anselm “The fool said in his hear, ‘there is no God’.

Insert the t in 'heart'.

But certainly that same fool, having heard what I just said, ‘something greater than cannot be though,’ understands what he heard, and what he understands is in his thought…

Insert the t in the first 'thought'.

Paragraph 9:  Most of us here in the 21st century are convinced that genocide, rape, torture, misogyny, slavery, racismand human sacrificeare all quite bad things.

Your spacing is off, after 'racism' and 'sacrifice'.  You also left out the Oxford comma after 'racism'.

Just consider your likely reaction if you were to meet a person who felt that these things were ok, or were perhaps even virtuous for some reason.

There's no comma before the 'or', since it's not an independent clause following it.

Paragraph 10:  ... but actually commanding, such acts.

No comma after 'commanding'.

So the third challenge to the ontological argument is that when conceiving of the greatest, most perfect, thing there are reasons to challenge the assumption that the thing imagined would be the God of the

Move the comma from after 'perfect' to after 'thing'. 

Last paragraph:  A total abandonment of human reason is necessitated to accept that merely by imagining God not only makes him real, it actually requires that he be real.

That's a comma splice.  Either add a conjunction after the comma, split it into two sentences, or replace the comma with a semicolon.


Also, I'd add, in your last section, that an argument is worse than wrong if other apologists rip it apart, as Thomas Aquinas did.  :-D

Comment by Joseph P on December 28, 2010 at 6:53pm


Heh, that one is even worth mentioning?  Besides being obviously ridiculous in that you can't define something into existence, there's the ludicrous flaw in that existence isn't a property of something.  My personal favorite is from Douglas Gasking:


1. The creation of the world is the most marvelous achievement imaginable.
2. The merit of an achievement is the product of (a) its intrinsic quality, and (b) the ability of its creator.
3. The greater the disability (or handicap) of the creator, the more impressive the achievement.
4. The most formidable handicap for a creator would be non-existence.
5. Therefore if we suppose that the universe is the product of an existent creator we can conceive a greater being — namely, one who created everything while not existing.
6. Therefore, God does not exist


(pasted from

Comment by Ian Mason on December 28, 2010 at 1:46pm

According to many, from Virginia Woolf to modern neurologists, the human brain is capable of perceiving a maximum of 6 things at any one time. The more usual average i 5, the numbers 1 to 5 or letters A to E for example. That means that the largest thing I can understand is 6 if I'm unusually talented. Does this mean that things that come in 7's are divine? Just because I can't think of them all at one time?


Try the experiment: how many letters can you think of/picture in one image and at one time? At which point do you start reading left to right to get them all in?

Comment by Tony Davis on December 28, 2010 at 7:45am

For any who care to read it (and hopefully critique it as well) I just posted an article which addresses St. Anselm's Ontological Argument at



Comment by A Former Member on December 21, 2010 at 4:40pm

Indeed. Thanks.

Comment by A Former Member on December 21, 2010 at 2:44pm

Thanks Craig. : )

Comment by Craig A. James on December 21, 2010 at 2:31pm

We refer to Galileo by his name ... Galileo.  His full name was Galileo di Vincenzo Bonaiuti de' Galilei, the "de' Galilei" originally referring to the family's place of origin.


"da Vinci" is actually incorrect.  His name was Leonardo, "da Vinci" refers to where his family was from.


Same with many from that era.  The modern use of surnames as a "constant" that is passed from father to children is relatively modern.

Comment by A Former Member on December 21, 2010 at 2:11pm

Speaking of Galileo Galilei, has anyone ever wondered why we always refer to him by his first name? We don't refer to Albert Einstein as Albert, or Nicolaus Copernicus as Nicolaus. With other famous people it's always their last name: da Vinci, Newton, Hawkings, Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, Spinoza, Hume, Sartre, etc., but we always refer to GG as Galileo.


The only other person I can immediately think of that we do this with is Napolean Bonaparte.


I wonder why we do this?

Comment by Joseph P on December 21, 2010 at 2:05pm

It's a book about the last moments of Immanuel Kant's life and how he was tempted by the ghost of Galileo Galilei.

Comment by A Former Member on December 21, 2010 at 1:20pm

Well don't tease us Althea. What's it about?


Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today



Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon



© 2014   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service