Where do the labels put me in respect to Nihilism?

I am not a pessimistic philosopher.
Although my existential tendencies can occasionally be a burden during random dizzy-spells when I'm unsure of what's happening to me, I believe that the Universe and existence/ life itself are such beautiful and incredible things, whether meaningless or not.

Wikipedia describes Nihilism as: "the philosophical doctrine suggesting the negation of one or more putatively meaningful aspects of life. Most commonly, nihilism is presented in the form of existential nihilism which argues that life is without objective meaning, purpose, or intrinsic value."


This is where things get interesting.


I agree that, beyond human perceptions, both individual and collective, there is no objective meaning, purpose, or intrinsic value to life. But within the realm of the human psyche there is an intrinsic value to life, as it's absolutely everything there is to the conscious mind. Once it's gone, life loses that intrinsic value which existed only to you (or, in a collective sense, to 'us') as a living, breathing, thinking, and seeing human being. Whether there is a heaven, a hell, a Paradise, Valhalla, reincarnation, or the Universe repeats itself over and over again infinitely, as far as I'm willing to put expectations on the concept of death and an end to my conscious existence, it all ends in absolutely nothing for all of us. 
Our pursuit of knowledge and answers, and our search for higher modes of thought as well as comfort in life that we will continue to live past death all end in the blank, intrinsically meaningless and apparent end of the road we call death.


Nihilists are famous for, as well as stereotyped as becoming jaded and miserable as a result of such observations on our mortality and the perceptive meaninglessness of life beyond conscious and intelligent existence, but in my opinion, they look at it in such an ungrateful, unappreciative aspect as if all of this isn't enough to satisfy them, and as far as I'm concerned, that's not only a selfish outlook, but an outlook which is both unnecessary and nothing but a waste of time, energy, and emotion.  
At the risk of sounding slightly condescending (not that it really means much, as 'condescending' is also a matter of opinion and perspective), such negative observations are not something to be resisted with positive thought; they are simply incorrect. Not that there is a correct answer or observation to make, but any philosophy lacking the existential incredulity at the fact that we have the privilege to exist in any way, shape, or form at all misses one of the key observations in life. 


So what, we're small and insignificant to the Universe? The only reason that suddenly became an inconvenience to us is because we realized there probably isn't a God, or God's, so such a downgrade in our egocentric perception of the bigger picture seemed like a slap in the face; as if we had suddenly become so much less as a result.   




But in all honesty, Godlessness is more. 
Sure, that illusory and comforting guarantee that there was always someone (or something) looking over us, as well as caring for us may be gone, and with it a sense of comforting certainty has disintegrated, but it's not as if the truth has been revealed to be a pessimistic meaninglessness. 
In fact, the nature of human perception, after falsely acknowledging there was only that single aspect to the entirety of the Universe, couldn't comprehend how full the Universe really was once God suddenly became absent from it. Our first reaction to the lack of a deity was to replace one single observatory aspect with another; from the optimistic certainty of a God, to the pessimistic certainty of absolute meaninglessness. 
It seems to be human nature to gravitate to polar opposite sides of one side or another (ex: good or evil, everything or nothing, left wing or right wing, etc) when the truth is, not only is there no objective truth to anything at all (think about that for a moment: it leaves room for the mind to acknowledge that if the truth is 'there is no objective truth,' it's up to you to decide whether there is or not, or perhaps neither is true), there are simply many, many different truths, some connected to one another, and others not related at all.  
For this reason, I scoff at scientists as well as philosophers that believe there is some universal law that binds everything together. From our spec of dust floating around a spec of sand in an unbelievably large galaxy which is, in itself, a spec of sand in comparison to the unimaginable number of other galaxies, there is no way we can ever possibly know if there is a universal, overarching law to everything in existence, and the idea of 'law' is, in itself, nothing but a human perspective and a push for some sort of certainty. 


As Voltaire once said: "Doubt is not a comfortable feeling, but certainty is absurd."
And I disagree with him in a sense. I do, indeed, find comfort in doubt, and find discomfort in anything that claims it has found certainty in everything, be it religious, philosophical, or scientific.
Or, as Bill Maher put it: "I don't know, and neither do you. So stop pretending that you do know."