Any Nihilists here?

[Anomalocaris]

To be somewhat controversial, I can't really see how one doesn't end up with a nihilistic set of beliefs if one thinks a physicalist universe is most likely.  

If physicalism true, then God, freewill, objective morality, and objective meaning inevitably evaporate, and absurdity inevitably follows.  At least, that's how it seems to me.  Scepticism likewise seems to follow.

you live, presumably because you are driven to avoid death and discomfort.    that is sufficient basis upon which to build all meaning.   all meaning, however baroque, ultimately rests on these foundations.

[The Grand Nudger]

The difference between nihilism and skepticism is that skepticism is concerned with all the ways we might get something wrong and nihilism suggests that we -can't- get something wrong. I'm radically skeptical of most moral utterances, willing to entertain endless caveats and edge cases. I can't be a nihilist, though, because I think that you can get these things right or wrong.

[Angrboda]

To be somewhat controversial, I can't really see how one doesn't end up with a nihilistic set of beliefs if one thinks a physicalist universe is most likely.  

If physicalism true, then God, freewill, objective morality, and objective meaning inevitably evaporate, and absurdity inevitably follows.  At least, that's how it seems to me.  Scepticism likewise seems to follow.

It's easy. We grant provisional reality to abstracts like numbers and the principles of logic. Even in a physicalist universe we accept that some things that might be real aren't physical.

[FrustratedFool]

I see no way that freewill can exist. I see no way moral statements can be factual, right or wrong.

But it's interesting some see it differently.

[Anomalocaris]

I see no way that freewill can exist.  I see no way moral statements can be factual, right or wrong.

But it's interesting some see it differently.

The fact that free will can not exist means you don’t have a choice in whether or not believe in free wheel or see moral statements as factual or not.

[FrustratedFool]

Agreed. But my belief eitherway doesn't change the reality. So even if I did believe in morality it still wouldn't exist.

[The Grand Nudger]

Or vv, ofc, that even if you didn't, it still does.

[FrustratedFool]

Indeed.

[Bucky Ball]

I see no way that freewill can exist.  I see no way moral statements can be factual, right or wrong.

But it's interesting some see it differently.

The fact that free will can not exist means you don’t have a choice in whether or not believe in free wheel or see moral statements as factual or not.

Depends on the definitions, (which are sorely lacking in this thread). 

"Degrees of" anything destroys (absolute) nihilism. 

There are many things that are meaningful to me, and make me happy, and in fact, "being happy" or "content" or "not in pain" are values I prefer, thus not a nihilist.
The universe doesn't give a shit. 

Free will does exist, in some sense. That above post got written, in the way it did. 
There were many choices involved (and according to neuro-science, 95 % of those choices involved, were subconscious), including the decision that it was worthwhile 
to post it. If even 5 % (or 1 %) is "free", that means one could "randomly see" something new or in a "new" light that one never did before, (or might be seen as valuable or worthwhile to try.) So you decide to go running every morning, and that becomes a habit. The habit becomes ingrained. Granted there were all kinds of personal "pre-requisites" in the process of valuing that "something new", or seeing the "old" in a new way, .. so you are "free" to lay down a long-term change, or even just go running once.

Moral statements are never "factual". The word "factual" was never once used in all the Ethics courses I took, 
and has never once been used by anyone on the Ethics Committee I sit on, (except maybe that "it is a fact that *so and so* does not wish to be coded  (resuscitated) 
should their heart stop beating"). BTW, there are some interesting new "ethics", possibly ?? from "feminist ethics", ie "a duty to care" you can find if you're interested. 
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminism-ethics/

In the classical religious (Medieval) "moral" sense, there is no free will possible, because that requires that ALL the important elements of a choice be present 
in consciousness *at the time the decision is made*. We know that is not the case, not possible, ... and in fact decisions are made before we are conscious of them, by a few seconds. There is a ton of recent research on that. (And if you were following what NX and I were arguing about, where he was making false claims about what the Roman Church says about "Mortal Sin", this (fully assent to the three elements of mortal sin in the Catechism) where no one can know whether they are fully met, this is why he was totally wrong on that and the church's position.

[The Grand Nudger]

I think your experience in not seeing the word factual very often might represent the work of the committees rather than the majority position of contemporary moral philosophy. Moral realism isn't novel or rare, it's the standard assumption. I would be horrified if some provider did or didn't give me care based on non factual premises and statements.