Information

Philosophy

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: 320
Latest Activity: Apr 25, 2017

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 Day Philosophy Leaked into the Air

Started by Ruth Anthony-Gardner. Last reply by Grinning Cat Dec 12, 2016. 4 Replies

Our Unthinkable Situation, beyond Nihilism

Started by Ruth Anthony-Gardner. Last reply by Bertold Brautigan Jan 23, 2016. 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

STANFORD ENCYCLOPEDIA OF PHILOSOPHY UPDATES

Curry's Paradox

[Revised entry by Lionel Shapiro and Jc Beall on January 19, 2018. Changes to: Main text, Bibliography, notes.html] "Curry's paradox", as the term is used by philosophers today, refers to a wide variety of paradoxes of self-reference or circularity that trace their modern ancestry to Curry (1942b) and Lob (1955).[1] The common characteristic of these so-called Curry paradoxes is the way they exploit a notion of implication, entailment or consequence,...

William Heytesbury

[Revised entry by Miroslav Hanke and Elzbieta Jung on January 19, 2018. Changes to: 0] [Editor's Note: The following new entry by Miroslav Hanke and Elzbieta Jung replaces the former entry on this topic by the previous author.] William Heytesbury (c. 1313 - 1372/3), a member of Oxford's Merton College and the School of "Oxford Calculators", was...

Georg [György] Lukács

[Revised entry by Titus Stahl on January 18, 2018. Changes to: Main text, Bibliography] Georg (Gyorgy) Lukacs (1885 - 1971) was a literary theorist and philosopher who is widely viewed as one of the founders of "Western Marxism". Lukacs is best known for his pre-World War II writings in literary theory, aesthetic theory and Marxist philosophy. Today, his most widely read works are the Theory of the Novel of 1916 and History and Class Consciousness of 1923. In History and Class Consciousness, Lukacs laid out a wide-ranging critique of the phenomenon of "reification" in capitalism and...

Privacy

[Revised entry by Judith DeCew on January 18, 2018. Changes to: Main text, Bibliography] The term "privacy" is used frequently in ordinary language as well as in philosophical, political and legal discussions, yet there is no single definition or analysis or meaning of the term. The concept of privacy has broad historical roots in sociological and anthropological discussions about how extensively it is valued and preserved in various cultures. Moreover, the concept has historical origins in well known philosophical discussions, most notably...

Platonism in the Philosophy of Mathematics

[Revised entry by Øystein Linnebo on January 18, 2018. Changes to: Main text, Bibliography, notes.html] Platonism about mathematics (or mathematical platonism) is the metaphysical view that there are abstract mathematical objects whose existence is independent of us and our language, thought, and practices. Just as electrons and planets exist independently of us, so do numbers and sets. And just as statements about electrons and planets are made true or false by the objects with which they are concerned and these objects' perfectly objective properties, so are statements about...

Comment Wall

Comment

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 hell....free 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 (320)

 
 
 

line

Update Your Membership :

Membership

line

line

Nexus on Social Media:

line

© 2018   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service