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: 319
Latest Activity: Jul 3

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

Our Unthinkable Situation, beyond Nihilism

Started by Ruth Anthony-Gardner. Last reply by Bertold Brautigan Jan 23. 1 Reply

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



[Revised entry by Sylvia Berryman on December 2, 2016. Changes to: Bibliography] The Greek tradition regarded Leucippus as the founder of atomism in ancient Greek philosophy. Little is known about him, and his views are hard to distinguish from those of his associate Democritus. He is sometimes said to have been a student of Zeno of Elea, and to have devised the atomist philosophy in order to escape from the problems raised by Parmenides and his followers....


[Revised entry by Sylvia Berryman on December 2, 2016. Changes to: Main text] Democritus, known in antiquity as the 'laughing philosopher' because of his emphasis on the value of 'cheerfulness,' was one of the two founders of ancient atomist theory. He elaborated a system originated by his teacher Leucippus into a materialist account of the natural world. The atomists held that there are smallest indivisible bodies from which everything else is composed, and that these move about in an infinite...

Paraconsistent Logic

[Revised entry by Graham Priest, Koji Tanaka, and Zach Weber on December 1, 2016. Changes to: Main text] The contemporary logical orthodoxy has it that, from contradictory premises, anything can be inferred. Let ⊨ be a relation of logical consequence, defined either semantically or proof-theoretically. Call ⊨ explosive if it validates {A , nA} ⊨ B for every A and B (ex contradictione quodlibet (ECQ)). Classical logic, and most standard 'non-classical' logics too such as intuitionist logic, are explosive. Inconsistency,...

Robert Kilwardby

[Revised entry by José Filipe Silva on November 29, 2016. Changes to: Main text, Bibliography, notes.html] Robert Kilwardby (ca. 1215 - 1279) was a Dominican Provincial and later Archbishop of Canterbury, who started his academic career around 1231 at the University of Paris. As a Master of Arts he is one of the first to comment on the newly available Aristotelian logical works, commentaries whose influence is generally recognized. His is also a widely read introduction to the sciences, the De ortu scientiarum. He is however mostly associated with Augustinian thought, especially on the plurality of substantial forms and the...

Marriage and Domestic Partnership

[Revised entry by Elizabeth Brake on November 29, 2016. Changes to: Main text, Bibliography] Marriage, a prominent institution regulating sex, reproduction, and family life, is a route into classical philosophical issues such as the good and the scope of individual choice, as well as itself raising distinctive philosophical questions. Political philosophers have taken the organization of sex and reproduction to be essential to the health of the state, and moral philosophers have debated whether marriage has a special moral status and relation to the human good. Philosophers...

Comment Wall


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

Comment by Bryon on December 11, 2010 at 3:24am

ummm... If you are a southerner you can crash on my couch for a night or so while you find your way out of even.

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.

Members (317)



Update Your Membership :




Nexus on Social Media:


© 2016   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service