Let s first properly establish what Nihilism is.

I m going to shamelessly blockquote,

making a blatant argument from authority just to steamroll over the rampant scio
lism.
Nihilism, (from Latin nihil, nothing ), originally a philosophy of moral and episte
mological skepticism that arose in 19th-century Russia during the early years of
the reign of Tsar Alexander II. The term was famously used by Friedrich Nietzsc
he to describe the disintegration of traditional morality in Western society. In
the 20th century, nihilism encompassed a variety of philosophical and aesthetic
stances that, in one sense or another, denied the existence of genuine moral tr
uths or values, rejected the possibility of knowledge or communication, and asse
rted the ultimate meaninglessness or purposelessness of life or of the universe.
The term is an old one, applied to certain heretics in the Middle ages. In Russi
an literature, nihilism was probably first used by N.I. Nadezhdin, in an 1829 ar
ticle in the Messenger of Europe, in which he applied it to Aleksander Pushkin.
Nadezhdin, as did V.V. Bervi in 1858, equated nihilism with skepticism. Mikhail
Nikiforovich Katkov, a well-known conservative journalist who interpreted nihili
sm as synonymous with revolution, presented it as a social menace because of its
negation of all moral principles.
It was Ivan Turgenev, in his celebrated novel Fathers and Sons (1862), who popul
arized the term through the figure of Bazarov the nihilist. Eventually, the nihi
lists of the 1860s and 70s came to be regarded as disheveled, untidy, unruly, rag
ged men who rebelled against tradition and social order. The philosophy of nihil
ism then began to be associated erroneously with the regicide of Alexander II (1
881) and the political terror that was employed by those active at the time in c
landestine organizations opposed to absolutism. [1]
As a quick aside, I d like to present you with a quick description of
ihilist from Turgenev s novel:

Bazarov the n

Bazarov is a nihilist of humble background whose life-view involves a rejection

of anything that has previously been accepted as valid. The "nihilist" refuses t
o take anyone's word for anything; he can have no alliances and no emotions; he
cares no more for one country than for another and accepts only that which is sc
ientifically proven. [2]
Notice how his actual personality, as written, is degenerated somewhat into dishe
veled, untidy, unruly, ragged men who rebelled against tradition and social orde
r in the common meaning of the word during the 1860 s and 70 s.
Unlike such real-life counterparts as Dmitri Pisarev, Nikolai Dobrolyubov, and N
ikolai Chernyshevskii, who also bore the label, Bazarov's interests were largely
apolitical; however, he shared with these historical personalities disdain for
tradition and authority, great faith in reason, commitment to a materialist phil
osophy like that of Ludwig Bchner, and an ardent desire to see radical changes in
contemporary society. [3]
Returning now to our original purpose:
If to the conservative elements the nihilists were the curse of the time, to the
liberals such as N.G. Chernyshevsky they represented a mere transitory factor i
n the development of national thought a stage in the struggle for individual freed
om and a true spirit of the rebellious young generation. In his novel What Is to B
e Done? (1863), Chernyshevsky endeavoured to detect positive aspects in the nihi
list philosophy. Similarly, in his Memoirs, Prince Peter Kropotkin, the leading
Russian anarchist, defined nihilism as the symbol of struggle against all forms
of tyranny, hypocrisy, and artificiality and for individual freedom.

Fundamentally, 19th-century nihilism represented a philosophy of negation of all

forms of aestheticism; it advocated utilitarianism and scientific rationalism.
Classical philosophical systems were rejected entirely. Nihilism represented a c
rude form of positivism and materialism, a revolt against the established social
order; it negated all authority exercised by the state, by the church, or by th
e family. It based its belief on nothing but scientific truth; science would be
the solution of all social problems. All evils, nihilists believed, derived from
a single source ignorance which science alone would overcome. [2]
A storied word with a complex and imprecise meaning to be sure. The Russian poli
tical movement that was erroneously associated with the word (which may later ha
ve been adopted by them) did its part to sour the connotation. Nietzsche s confusi
ng use of the word didn t help either (addressed here), perpetuated by Camus. Furt
her
Use of the term spread rapidly throughout Europe and the Americas. As it did, th
e term lost most of its anarchistic and revolutionary flavor, ceasing to evoke t
he image of a political program or even an intellectual movement. It did not, ho
wever, gain in precision or clarity. On the one hand, the term is widely used to
denote the doctrine that moral norms or standards cannot be justified by ration
al argument. On the other hand, it is widely used to denote a mood of despair ov
er the emptiness or triviality of human existence. This double meaning appears t
o derive from the fact that the term was often employed in the nineteenth centur
y by the religiously oriented as a club against atheists, atheists being regarde
d as ipso facto nihilists in both senses. The atheist, it was held, would not fe
el bound by moral norms; consequently, he would tend to be callous or selfish, e
ven criminal. At the same time he would lose the sense that life has meaning and
therefore tend toward despair and suicide. [3]
Ahh, there it is.
As many Atheists know, But how can you be moral if there s no God? is still an all t
oo common refrain. Explaining the correct meaning of nihilism (assuming one is e
ven familiar with the correct meaning) and then defending ones atheism would be
rhetorical suicide; to maintain the initiative in a discussion, you have to focu
s on a limited number of points. This is why framing is a such a powerful and, u
sually, terrifying tool: it s nigh on impossible to work through the complexities
of deconstructing a framing in a debate setting, but not doing so forces you to
fight an uphill battle by implicitly accepting the hidden premises / terminology
and expressions whose connotations are biased towards your opponent s conclusions
.
Let me close with the definition of nihilism that I prefer to use, one that enco
mpasses all the various modern technical flavors of nihilism (epistemological, o
ntological, metaphysical, mereological, etc ).
Nihilism: a term indicating rejection of one or more traditional assumptions abo
ut the fundamental nature of human phenomenal perception.