Ignorance isn't evidence of absence. Epistemic nihilists call themselves skeptics and there have been plenty throughout history, the earliest I know of being Py

Ignorance isn't evidence of absence. Epistemic nihilists call themselves skeptics and there have been plenty throughout history, the earliest I know of being Pyrrho. Moral nihilists call themselves hedonists (or if you're being really strict, moral skeptics) and they are legion, many here in this very forum, plenty in the history of philosophy. There were a dozen or so Russian political nihilists for a while and you could probably argue that all anarchists are political nihilists in a sense (especially Pierre-Joseph Proudhon and Max Stirner). Then there are many really niche ones like mereorological nihilists who, I'd argue, call themselves monists. Existential nihilists, who deny a meaning to life and/or value, call themselves existentialists and absurdists and reigned in continental philosophy for half a century (the blog is vague but seems to mainly be referring to these.) I'll give the author that I've never heard of a serious metaphysical nihilist. It's hard to deny that something does exist and that it does work in some way. There's another flaw in the analysis too: Why would people write about things they don't believe in and don't care about? Anti-theists do that, but what if they're the exception rather than the rule (because of a certain oppressive history in the area there.)