Nihilism is NOT the 'belief in nothing'.
Nihilism IS skepticism coupled with reduction, and furthermore it is the realization that there is/are no:

1. teleology
2. wrong or right - just cause and effect
3. sacred principles, along with taboo, heresy and blasphemy.

... and that:
4. artificial morality and values are subjective, elastic, fungible and impermanent
5. that which is self-evident requires no belief, for it has an independent, objective existence and self-continuation.

While Nihilism rejects:
6. faith, and everything necessitated by it.

And Nihilism uses:
7. Occam's Razor
8. logic

While recognizing:
9. natural selection
10. sustainable idea-sets have minimized internal contradictions.

Furthermore even if it can be shown that one element has flaws this does not demonstrate that any or all of the remaining points are flawed as well.

5) Self-Evident. For example, one does not need faith in the objective principle or the word-symbol 'gravity' to know that if you jump off a cliff you will fall to the bottom, or that if you punch a wall it will hurt your fist. This concept segues into the idea of pain and sensations which although they can be distorted, they are still consistent and these neurological signals are the same throughout the animal kingdom. A needless fixation on the basic chemical and electrical properties (or beyond) does not invalidate the fundamental purpose they serve for the biological organism.

9) Natural Selection. One path is selected over another for a reason. "Natural selection is a mechanism for generating an exceedingly high degree of improbability." R. A. Fisher. Nor through divine guidance since this is unsupported by any evidence and rejected using the principle of Occam's Razor. Rather natural selection outcome is a product of surroundings and the unceasing struggle of adaptation and the search for success. This process should not be confused with a value, which is an arbitrary choice by a human mind such as saying the color blue is better than the color purple. Whatever mind-games the philosophers want to play, one can debate where it leads and why, but none of that matters. Occam's Razor again - because natural selection reflects the framework that not only we as biological entities exist within but the entire universe operates upon that principle as a result of being a finite system. Everything either succeeds or it fails.

What if I don't agree with everything? Within any set of ideas exists a reasonable allowance for dissent. In other words to be a nihilist you don't have to agree with every single detail merely the basic tenets.

Basic tenets: Nihilism is the refutation of God, the refutation of morality, refutation of law, refutation of justice, and the refutation of all artificial order. Furthermore I carefully chose the word 'refutation' because it means illuminating them as false and erroneous. This as opposed to say 'disbelief' meaning refusal to believe, although non-belief could be more appropriate. All that is happening at minimum is merely illuminating the assumptions and false underpinnings of what is commonly taken for granted such as the anti-logic of religion and the injustice of modern-justice. Think of nihilism as a form of reductionism.

What is nihilism? A purified definition of nihilism is reduction to that which is ineluctable, which is a short way of saying that nihilism is about dealing with those elements and facts that cannot be avoided, vitiated or abrogated while accepting that all else is shades of myth or fantasy. Nihilism is an understanding of what morality is. Where good and evil come from and the power of those forces. Morality defines everyone's actions, it defines the legal structure that punishes, the limitations on our thoughts and ideas, the range of response to any given situation. Think of why they have too many cattle in India and the concomitant range of disease and starvation.

Who are the nihilists? Technically anyone who follows and understands the tenets of nihilism. At present mostly it's an informal, often individualistic expression largely due to widespread misunderstanding, public misconceptions or simply lack of awareness. However that will change, starting here.

What's the difference between nihilism and anarchism? Anarchism is against government, the idea being that all government is repressive and should be abolished. To a nihilist government is just a symptom, it's the icing on the cake, it's secondary, no tertiary, to what really matters. If all one is concerned with is tyrannical rule, if that's all you want to solve, go for it but you won't ever make any permanent change because you're pulling up the weeds and leaving the roots in the ground. Nihilism is fundamentally much more significant because it strikes at the roots it strikes at morality.

What's the difference between nihilism and atheism? Atheism is a personal answer to unverifiable theological and mystical issues and by definition is limited in this regard as a broader ideology and certainly, I posit, as a weltanschauung.

Do you have to be an atheist to be an nihilist? No because basal nihilism, the emotion and introspective reasoning characteristic of what's broadly termed social nihilism plagues disparate groups to include the religious and the atheist alike. So to be succinct an atheist is not (necessarily) a nihilist but most nihilists would be correctly termed atheistic (among other things).

Isn't nihilism just an excuse for hedonism? No. Nihilism is rejection of guilt, the moral nose ring, because it fuels environmental theologies and an endless series of self-abasement ideologies. Nihilism is dropping guilt and becoming human; it's the acceptance of instinct that minimizes mental illness and repressed aggression. Ultimately the choice of hedonism is open but nature has an uncanny ability to punish the foolish, then neighbors will find a way to deliver comeuppance to the rest compelled to flaunt the limits of reasonable behavior. You may be able to do anything you want but that doesn't mean you necessarily should. Besides, hedonism is unhealthy because it's slavery to compulsion. Likewise it's acutely obvious as the population gets fatter and weaker that imbalanced pleasure is just postponed pain. So understanding cause and effect within our biological limitations and defining appropriate conduct is a reflection of self-respect and sanity. And pleasure is a biologically evolved response to certain behaviour and stimuli, that genetic imperative which is the real owner of the human soul. News flash: your MTV rebel is just a deluded slave.

Isn't this just another revolution? Revolution in the traditional sense does nothing more than repeat the failures of the past; this plan is to avoid those same mistakes. What is commonly called revolution is a ruse designed to dupe the people into releasing pent up anger in officially approved directions usually against themselves or against the few people smart enough to actually change things for the better - just ask those 'revolutionary' Communists, or more accurately study what they've done. But contemporary language has serious limitations on the ability to express proper nihilistic meaning; the desire is for more than revolution because the intention is to circumvent the cycles of history.

"I don't think this web site is really nihilistic because the definition I've read states everything is meaningless, life is futile and nothing can be known."
1. Most of this confusion originates from overly simplistic definitions written by non-nihilists who have little interest in nihilism itself and no desire to make it internally consistent or functional. That is a problem with many dictionaries and why the better ones have more than one definition. Nevertheless, to grasp nihilism one can't stop at the dictionary! I think it's a wise reminder at this point that just because someone says something doesn't make it factual and just because many, even a majority of people, believe something that doesn't make it real. Determining fact from fiction is a much more challenging process than merely accepting or rejecting idle statements; the most effective decisions are based upon experience.

Our human mind allows us the illusion of existing within two distinct worlds, that of everyday reality or that of fantasy and philosophy. The first is pragmatic and the second is idealized. The fictionalized, idealized philosophy world may be of use at times to better understand the nature of things, perhaps by creating a simplified model of practical reality but ultimately by virtue of the fact we all exist within a physical human body we're constrained in significant yet universal ways that forces us all back to that world of practical reality whether we like it or not. The nihilism you've read here does vary to certain degrees from simplified dictionary definition of existential nihilism and also the very myopic view that many contemporary pundits take on nihilism and its potential which ignores historical precedent, such as the 19th century Russian Nihilists, and also the flexibility within all living idea-sets. (see above 'what if I don't agree with everything').

So one could say that the typical contemporary, dictionary view of existential nihilism is a fuzzy philosophy that fixates on fictional extremes in the typical way metaphysics does while the active 'political' version is a more refined, pragmatic extension of basal nihilism. The bottom line is that one can't put any singular, one-dimensional interpretation of nihilism into practice, or indeed into any realistic situation. They say that politics is the art of the possible and if that's true than political nihilism is the art of pragmatic nihilism. If you want to live nihilism rather than just fantasize about it then you have to take the nihilism here, or at least something very, very close to it.

2. One obscure complaint against Nihilism’s Home Page goes like this: since the website is ‘something’ rather than ‘nothing’ it isn’t nihilism. Skipping the specious nature of the argument itself, a specific but hidden emotional sentiment is what’s actually being conveyed. This sentiment is an anger manifest from being told that in life some things are either impossible or inappropriate; in other words the appeal of ‘nihilism’ here is using it to justify any and all personal action – (of course in practice this means ‘my’ action not ‘yours’!) In this case nihilism is seen as a license to ‘do whatever I want to do’ but any kind of structure or analysis applied to that belief inevitably undermines the argument hence the anger vented at Nihilism’s Home Page. Oh darn … and life is fair except when you lose!

How is it possible to know anything at all?
You can't, but we can make guesses that usually suffice. These guesses are based upon experience stemming from the illusion of time creating a sense of past and knowledge of previous occurrences. Most everything else is a statistical construction, nonetheless most things around are so predictable and normative that this guessing is about as good as knowing. "Our experience hitherto justifies us in believing that nature is the realization of the simplest conceivable mathematical ideas." - A. Einstein

What is the meaning of history?
Since it's impossible to know beyond the fleeting moment of the present, history assumes a highly subjective quality. This is one reason why Napoleon said "History is a collection of lies statesmen have agreed upon." History exists not as an absolute chronology of events which is an absurdity because most of it can never be known for certain, but rather for the lessons we learn from those past events and messages we extract from it, if any. Reference above question.

Is religion really that awful? One very common question goes like this: If there’s no ‘meaning’ to life then doesn’t it make sense to do whatever makes you happy and not think about things that don’t make you happy? In other words since ignorance is bliss why learn anything? Another version essentially replaces the word ‘ignorance’ with ‘religion’ – if there’s no ‘meaning’ to life and religion makes people happy, why rain on their party trying to disabuse them of their beliefs?

This question seems more rhetorical than serious to me but nonetheless as often as it’s asked it still deserves an answer. The explanation could go on for pages but to be succinct it boils down to two points. First of all stupidity is not healthy for anybody. Seeing though superstition and illusion is a critical task because it prevents the individual from being exploited in life. Second, the religious, believing they hold a monopoly on truth, are compelled to force everyone else to believe just as they do which means conflict is inevitable. Nihilism and religion cannot co-exist because the believers cannot allow it.

What is the successful end-state for Nihilism? / What happens when Nihilism wins? Nihilism doesn’t necessarily have any end-state except perhaps when it finally leads to something greater, like a stepping stone to be superseded. So it’s not really an issue of winning in the traditional sense of things, there’s no final victor because life isn’t like that. Dwelling on the hypothetical end-state of Nihilism may cause people to miss the significance of the process for by expanding and interjecting the ‘extreme’ position into the mainstream it makes reaching a functional and factual conclusion on the part of the public far more likely to occur. It’s about influencing the center of mass by expanding the poles of debate. For example think of the long-shot candidates that enter an election not with the realistic intent of getting the most votes but rather to influence the debate and compel the public to address their issues of concern when they would otherwise be ignored and swept under the rug by the dominant political parties.

Should I Vote? Is the glass half full or is it half empty? Deciding whether to vote or not is the same sort of question – the answer depends on your perspective and sentiment at the given moment, but the short answer is yes; let me explain in greater detail < here >.

What is ANUS? Neither Freydis, Nihilism’s Home Page, nor CounterOrder.com are affiliated with ANUS, an acronym for American Nihilist Underground Society. Although the group’s website seems to be in a continual state of revision over the past several years they currently promote an unusual mixture of heavy metal music and extreme nationalism while concluding (judge for yourself) that these values are an extension of nihilism.

Lexicographic clarifications: The common atheist espousal of disbelief in the supernatural or especially that which can only be proven is often closer to nihilism. Indeed many people using the term atheist would better fit in the category of nihilism but for lack of awareness of the proper terminology. Anarchism is a similar problematic phrase because what most anarchists really want isn't no-government it's self-government, the individual sovereignty of autarchy. Furthermore nihilism is not a 'belief in nothing' which is a self-evident absurdity but actually:

1. A doctrine holding that all values are baseless and nothing can be known or communicated.

2. The belief that destruction of existing social or political institutions is necessary for future improvement.

Obligatory philosophical questions for the curious and desperately insecure alike, here's nihilism as reductionism...

Nihilism shouldn't be the spurious cop-out explanation everything is meaningless. 'Political' nihilism or nihilism in the only form that has any continuity states not that existence is meaningless merely that the contemporary meaning is inaccurate. In that spirit here is an attempt to rectify some of those inaccuracies.

What is the meaning of life everything? From as far back as any evidence can be discerned the fundamental algorithm for everything around us is the ability to be copied and extenuated. Anything that can fulfill this role will spread and 'succeed' to varying degrees based on multiple factors such as copying fidelity or cleverness in avoiding hazards or outwitting opponents etc. One can reject this paradigm but only at the cost of 'success'. No thing and no entity has ever managed to avoid it nor can it be avoided because it's an integral law of the universe(s).

How is success defined? Increased intelligence, wider spread, larger numbers, enhanced power, magnified influence.

How did we get here? I don't think it really matters since we clearly ARE here but the most likely scenario is comet vectored seed chemicals developed in interstellar clouds warmed by ambient radiation. Basically the hypothesis known as Panspermia. Earth's life evolved from that inglorious but crucial start.

What is our purpose? This is a better question and the answer is ultimately a personal decision limited to the confines of contemporary moral topology and the ideological sandbox. However I believe that the only answer with any strategic viability is for 'success'.

Why do we die?
The succinct answer: so that new things can grow, to prevent stagnation and eventual extinction. On a microscopic level the question of why we die, or more specifically why our cells die, is a fascinating and surprisingly complex issue. An accessible documentary on the topic of cell death is Death by Design (1995) by Brunet & Friedman.

Is there life after death? The human life is a vehicle for genetic continuity and in this case life is very nearly immortal because the genetic material (is supposed to flow) on indefinitely, vacillating between the male or female container and perhaps ironically evolving and changing as little as possible. This is why civilization developed and why (barring extraneous influences) like mates with like.

Will the 'self' live after death? This is the above question distilled into the more traditional intent of the question which is to determine if ones own consciousness or 'self 'will continue on in any form after the physical death of the body. The exact same consciousness? No. I see no evidence for that anywhere. However the fractional consciousness which is partially a product of genetic material will continue in your descendants unless you are too busy trying to get rich or get promoted in which case your show is over after the funeral.
The 'smart' ones die off first...

What is the point (of anything / everything)? The universe may be pointless when measured using human values but this is because the universe didn't come into existence for human enjoyment. Rather, human life adapted to fit pre-existing conditions that the universe already contained. The universe exists independently of human life - the natural order is not anthropocentric. Many times we get the 'wrong' answer because we ask the 'wrong' question. We shouldn’t ask “why is everything pointless” but instead “why do we believe it’s pointless?”

What if I don't like these answers? People are the same today as they were millennia ago however technology and the spread of novel ides certainly has changed. Religiosity has been selected into the gene pool and religion or its false answers won't be going away anytime soon, merely replaced. The reason people are attracted to mystical solutions is the built in need dating from the dim archaic primate primeval, the overpowering urge to genuflect to dominant powerful males out of fear. Meet God.

But I can continue, what else is there to tear apart and uphold as illusion or delusion. The most meaningful question someone can ask is what is consciousness?, or who am I? And the accurate and proper reductionist answer is that all conscious and sentience is merely a temporal illusion of accumulated sensations. Indeed meditation is bunk because as soon as one ceases to feel or interpret reality they cease to exist in any metaphysical or conscious sense of the word for they become vegetable, alive but not sentient. “I dare almost affirm that a state of reflection is a state against nature, and that the man who meditates is a depraved animal.” - Jean-Jacques Rousseau Existence is to feel, to learn and accumulate information and interpret it thereby creating a sense of what is. So in a way life is the continual generation of illusions, but usually and ideally in a practical, useful sense.