Atheists, if there is no God, if humankind is doomed to blink out of existance at the next big bang...?

Question

Then isn't nihilism the most logical philosophical construct?

On the basis of logic, rather than subjective sentiment, say why this is, or is not so.

So far, 15 posts and only one response that has anything at all to do with the question.

"Logical", responsive answers, folks...please.

Suspendor, try to stay current. The universe has undergone an endless series of big bangs, and that last one wasn't...ah...the last one:)

OK, now we've got a couple of logical responses.

Do I hear three?

As for humankind ending with the next big bang... that's a best case scenario. There are all kinds of things that could end our tenure before that. That doesn't change the question. Nihilism... or not? And why?

Most of your arguments are sentimental, dismissive and irrational. Many of them are faith-based or irrespective of the facts. The context you function in is manufactured and has no relationship with the realities.

mutterhal... - I thought you gave a fair answer. The name-calling is another matter:)

Answer 1

Yes it is, and that is why I consider myself a nihilist. When you consider the futility of life, (i.e. what does it matter if I lead a good life when one day I could be hit by a bus, or shot, or die in fiery plane crash?) how can one not be a nihilist?

Edit: What the hell, next time just tell me the answer you'd like me to give...assbag.

Answer 2

Too much psycho-babble for me.

Edit:
You are the one being illogical here. Most people that ask questions are looking to gain information or enlightenment from the responses. When someone does take the time to express their thoughts about your statement you put them down as 'sentimental, dismissive, irrational, faith-based or irrespective of the facts.' Answers that do not jibe with your 'realities' are obviously illogical and unacceptable to you. Therefore, what's the point in asking the question. If you have statements that you want to make about the next 'big bang' and nihilism without the benefit of alternative opinions then start a blog, don't use this forum to slam someone that may have a different 'reality' than you.

Answer 3

Yep.

Where's your problem?
_

I fear you don't know your stuff - if you've got a source for that "there have been a series of Big Bangs" business you could cite it. It's not any current theory I've heard of and talk of a succession of "Big Crunches" are speculation (they exist outside of the laws of physics applied to this universe).

Also, what's with the smug tone? Where's YOUR logic? It's a pretty infantile question, all told, quite apart from its incorrect conceptualization - to use it as a way of inferring how clever you are (even when people offer you direct answers to a direct question) doesn't make you look the big deal you think it does. At its heart it's about as intelligent as asking "Who can guess what I'm thinking? WRONG! What a fool you are for not knowing that! Someone else what to have a try? WRONG AGAIN! Am I surrounded by morons?" You aren't framing an even-handed debate.
_

Answer 4

In a word yes.
and Yes.


Nihilism is a philosophical position, often associated with Friedrich Nietzsche (though he considered it something to be overcome), which argues that the world, and especially past and current human existence, is without objective meaning, purpose, comprehensible truth, or essential value. Nihilists generally assert some or all of the following: there is no reasonable proof of the existence of a higher ruler or creator, a "true morality" is unknown, and secular ethics are impossible; therefore, life has no truth, and no action is known to be preferable to any other.[1]

Nihilism is often more a charge leveled against a particular idea, movement, or group, than it is an actual philosophical position to which someone overtly subscribes. Movements such as Dadaism as well as Futurism[2] and deconstructionism,[3] among others, have been described by commentators as "nihilist" at various times in various contexts. Often this means or is meant to imply that the beliefs of the accuser are more substantial or truthful, whereas the beliefs of the accused are nihilistic, and thereby comparatively amount to nothing.

Answer 5

If there is no God, our existence is meaningless. Our limited understanding of truth, love, beauty and goodness would have no Perfect Standard by which to measure by. So yes, logically, the atheist must be nihistic.

I don't think there will be a "next big bang", since the oscillating theory of the universe is not accepted by cosmologists. Our sun will nova in a few billion years, which isn't anything to worry about.

Answer 6

It rather wasn't a bang. a greater helpful term must be the super expanse. all of us know it happened because of the fact while we word galaxies in area they are getting further aside and all coming from a significant element in our universe. i don't understand why you think of two atoms collided? skill and rely are appropriate interior the equation E=mc^^2. that's obtainable on the beginning up that the element of singularity became into all skill and no rely. as quickly as this skill began that is expanse it formed rely. additionally i don't have confidence time began with our universe. i don't see time as some thing actual. Time is barely a length and whether there is not something to degree, time measures how long not something became into there. for this reason God can't be exterior of time.

Answer 7

I think the ever expanding universe will reach its limits and collapse on itself and everything will start over again. Everything will be compressed to the point that there will be absolutely no record of us or the things we have done.

All we can do is leave something for the next generations to enjoy. I'm not falling into despair over this since there is nothing to look forward to though, on the contrary, "I am anticipating a good lunch"

Answer 8

Meaning is not dependent on the existence of God. When I look at the universe, I see no evidence for the existence of a personal God, but I do see evidence for the existence of a creative process which has brought sentient beings into existence. Why might this same process not bring even more developed and complex beings into existence, beings we can't yet imagine? If we developed the capacity for self-reflective thought, perhaps our survival of bodily death might also be an emergent capacity?

The denial of a personal God does not entail the belief in reductive materialism. In short, one can believe in meaning, in the soul, in spiritual life, without believing in a personal God.

Answer 9

No because many atheists find value in earthly pursuits or other philosophies. I try to strike a balance by pursuing interests while remebering how absurd it all is when I start to take things too seriously.

The next big bang? Life will be gone long before that happens.

Answer 10

Living for the moment, and achieving "enlightenment", as described by eastern philosophy, seems like the most logical philosophy to me.

Animals do it all day long. You don't see them debating the nature of their existence. They just exist, and they do it quite well.

Edit - I'm not sure where you get off saying that no one is addressing your question. I think several people did it quite well, myself included. Perhaps you don't understand my answer, but if you need it spelled out for you... NO... I don't consider it the most logical. And the reason why is above... (boggle)