Potentially, the Atheist Nexus is home to many philosophers, professional or amateur. This group will be the place for them to debate philosophical standpoints, share new ideas, or help each other understand various philosophical propositions.

Members: 328
Latest Activity: Feb 4

The Philosophy Group on Atheist Nexus

Potentially, the Atheist Nexus is home to many philosophers, professional or amateur. This group will be the place for them to debate philosophical standpoints, share new ideas, or help each other understand various philosophical propositions.

Do you ever find yourself discussing the philosophy of science or the philosophy of mind, or do you ever consider yourself a cynic, an existentialist, a nihilist or a skeptic? Join up and launch yourself into interesting discussions and analyses. Connect with your fellow thinker!

Interesting links

Discussion Forum

The Moral Landscape by Sam Harris

Started by Rodney A Sayre. Last reply by JP Carey Sep 4, 2013. 3 Replies

The Masochist's Wager

Started by Nathaniel Summers. Last reply by Steph S. Jan 7, 2013. 1 Reply

Can You Imagine Nothing?

Started by JP Carey. Last reply by Steph S. Dec 1, 2012. 3 Replies

Living the Examined Life

Started by JP Carey. Last reply by Steph S. Dec 1, 2012. 1 Reply



[New Entry by Neal Tognazzini and D. Justin Coates on April 15, 2014.] To blame someone is to respond in a particular way to something of negative normative significance about him or his behavior. A paradigm case, perhaps, would be when one person wrongs another, and the latter responds with resentment and a verbal rebuke, but of course, we also blame others for their attitudes and characters (see, e.g., Smith 2005). Thus blaming scenarios typically involve a wide range of inward...


[Revised entry by Frank Lovett on April 15, 2014. Changes to: Main text, Bibliography] In political theory and philosophy, the term 'republicanism' is generally used in two different, but closely related, senses. In the first sense, republicanism refers to a loose tradition or family of writers in the history of western political thought, including especially: Machiavelli and his fifteenth-century Italian predecessors; the English republicans...

George Boole

[Revised entry by Stanley Burris on April 14, 2014. Changes to: Main text, Bibliography] George Boole (1815 - 1864) was an English mathematician and a founder of the algebraic tradition in logic. He worked as a schoolmaster in England and from 1849 until his death as professor of mathematics at Queen's University, Cork, Ireland. He revolutionized logic by applying methods from the then-emerging field of symbolic algebra to logic. Where traditional (Aristotelian) logic relied on...

Géraud de Cordemoy

[Revised entry by Fred Ablondi on April 13, 2014. Changes to: Main text, Bibliography] Geraud de Cordemoy (1626 - 1684) was one of the more important Cartesian philosophers during the decades immediately following the death of Descartes. While he is in some respects a very orthodox Cartesian, Cordemoy was the only Cartesian to embrace atomism, and one of the first to argue for occasionalism. Though a lawyer by profession, Cordemoy was a prominent figure in Parisian philosophical circles. His...

Justice and Bad Luck

[Revised entry by Kasper Lippert-Rasmussen on April 11, 2014. Changes to: Main text, Bibliography, supplement1.html, supplement2.html] Some people end up worse off than others partly because of their bad luck. For instance, some die young due to a genetic disease, whereas others live long lives. Are such differential luck induced inequalities unjust? Many are inclined to answer this question affirmatively. To understand this inclination, we need a clear account of what luck involves. On some accounts, luck nullifies responsibility. On others, it nullifies desert. It is often said that justice requires luck to be 'neutralized'. However, it is...

Comment Wall


You need to be a member of Philosophy to add comments!

Comment by Vangelis Stamatopoulos on October 24, 2010 at 2:53am
According to wikipedia, the 5th-century BCE Greek philosopher Diagoras is known as the "first atheist". But I imagine that atheism has existed in some form or other ever since (wo)man first created god(s) for their amusement/fear. Philosophers and free thinkers down the century have come across great opposition from theists, even Charles Darwin himself delayed publishing his great work due to the consequences to theism and therefore the repercussions that he would experience from theists. Today in Australia, atheism seeks to exclude non-theist groups it does not see as fitting in its modified definition of atheism. You can read more in my blog here.
Comment by Kelvin Hilerio on September 19, 2010 at 7:12pm
Language as the root of religion, that' is interesting but i think the problem is more deeply imbeded in us. Language may indeed make the problem bigger though.
Comment by Kevin Ray Smith on September 19, 2010 at 3:52pm
Okie, I think you are on to something. There is a theory among those who study how religion began that states,religion began as a result of a virus of language. A virus where certain words were taken to mean something spiritual. When in fact, they were never intended to be understaood in that way.
Comment by Okie Tokie on June 10, 2010 at 4:48pm
IF language had never been developed, there never could have been religion since it is spread by words, spoken and written.
Comment by Keith Brian Johnson on June 7, 2010 at 2:19pm
I meant to say that he then needs to show necessary existence or necessary nonexistence *before accepting premiss (2) as well.*
Comment by Keith Brian Johnson on June 7, 2010 at 2:18pm
Here's one:
1. If God possibly exists, then God necessarily exists. (Premiss)
2. Possibly, God does not exist. (Premiss)
3. God does not necessarily exist. (2, P~q=~Nq)
4. God does not possibly exist. (1,3, Modus Tollens)
5. God necessarily does not exist. (4, ~Pq=N~q)
6. God does not exist. (5, N~q-->~q)

It's just Hartshorne's and Plantinga's version (well, essentially) with "Possibly, God exists" replaced by "Possibly, God does not exist." I stress that neither their version nor the one above should be taken as conclusive, as there is a problem with accepting both premisses simultaneously--once one accepts (1), he then needs to show (for Hartshorne's or Plantinga's proof) that God necessarily doesn't exist or (for the proof above) that God necessarily does exist. But, of course, anyone who could show such a thing wouldn't need an ontological proof in the first place!
Comment by D R Hosie on June 7, 2010 at 1:51pm
In response to Kevin Ray Smith:
I will, of course, have to leave it to you, to determine just how great it is, but I did just post an article on this subject - An Ontological Basis, For the Denial of God
Comment by Kevin Ray Smith on February 6, 2010 at 9:26pm
Howdy! Does anyone have a link to a great ontological "disproof" other than Douglas Gaskin's ironic disproof?
Comment by Anwar Diamante on December 6, 2009 at 2:31pm
Im working on pursuing a doctorate in urban education with a concentration on marxism, feminism, existentialism, post-structuralism, post-colonialism, critical race theory, and lgbtq theory.
Comment by Wonderist on November 22, 2009 at 11:05am
Philosophy needs to be saved from the dreaded navel-gazers! I don't care how many degrees the prof has, I want philosophy that works!

Members (326)


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