Where is the hope in atheism?

[Moral Orel]

Actually, this is a better example than I first gave it credit for, because it really does drive home the absurdity of the whole situation.

What is the intrinsic value of ice cream? There is none. You might like it because of its taste, but "good" is just a value you are arbitrarily attributing to it. At the end of your life, it won't matter how much ice cream you ate, because you will be dead and your memory of the taste of chocolate along with you. Even while you're alive, ordering your priorities over the best way to obtain more ice cream is absurd if you take a moment and look at it. I would hope that even atheists would agree that this is completely meaningless.

If work is "good" because it gives you money to to buy more ice cream, then work becomes absurd and meaningless as well. There is no purpose behind it except ice cream, and again, ordering your priorities around ice cream as the ultimate meaning of life would presumably come across as problematic in anyone's book. Just stop and contemplate the ridiculousness of this example for a moment and hopefully the concept of the Absurd will dawn on you.

Here's the key: some of us see that very absurdity stretching far beyond the ice cream example and infecting every finite thing. Whenever someone talks about the subjective meaning they derive from life, they might as well be waxing poetic about the divine qualities of chocolate ice cream, because that's what I'm going to hear. This is probably the best way to illustrate that point.

I already addressed this straw man "ice cream is the value I base all morals on" nonsense back in post #416. You failed to address my response then, and you're rolling it out again which doesn't lend your argument much credibility. My choice of chocolate ice cream isn't arbitrary either. It isn't random. I'm not just as likely to say chocolate ice cream is good as I am to say carrots are good. My love of chocolate ice cream is a deeply ingrained part of my being, and not some mere flight of fancy. It has value to me now, and even if it doesn't have value later when I'm dead, that doesn't mean it never had value. This whole paragraph is just your subjective opinion that my subjective opinion is absurd. If it is objectively absurd, demonstrate it. If you need me to come up with the reasons for you, then I seriously doubt you have any. But if you're to the point of outright admitting that you hear what you want to hear instead of what I've said, your claim is probably dead in the water.

So it's immoral to be a firefighter, police officer, or lifeguard?

Another straw man. Thanks, "So's Law". I gave you a very specific situation in which it would be morally wrong because an analysis of the risk to reward ratio is far too low, and somehow you concluded that all risk is greater than any reward. Nope. I never said any such thing.

Is it not obvious that being well trained, and well equipped to deal with specific situations within your specialty would lower the risk? Come on.

These are just distractions to try and attack my personal view of morality instead of demonstrating that atheism necessarily entails nihilism. Talking about my views on specific matters shouldn't be necessary in the slightest, yet you can't get away from it. Go to town, though. This approach only weakens your claim.

I'm trying to explain the difference between something being ontologically true and being a matter of definition. Do zebras only have stripes because people have subjectively decided they do?

I'm not providing "evidence" that existence is inherently good. There is none. I'm trying to explain what it would mean for existence to be good in its nature instead of "good" only being a quality subjectively attributed to it. This is a different metaphysical system with a different way of looking at values. We subjectively recognize the intrinsic goodness of existence instead of arbitrarily deciding that it's valuable.

Fair enough as far as your explanation goes. But if there's no reason to think it's true other than "hope", I'd say it can be dismissed. I mean, if the only reason to think it might be intrinsically good is because of subjective opinion that might just coincide with objective truth, I might be recognizing intrinsically good taste in chocolate ice cream. Some people disagree on the taste of chocolate ice cream, some people disagree on the goodness of existence. There's really no way to know for sure.

Classical theists in the Christian tradition would look at this differently. God is good, God is holy, God is love, and he will be these things regardless of individuals' actions. God does not change his stance and suddenly hate sin, but sin is instead incompatible with the goodness and holiness of God. We can align ourselves with God's nature, or we can align ourselves against his nature, but his nature remains the same.

I never said God had to change His stance on anything. His likes and dislikes are unchanging, fine. His preferences are a part of His nature, sure. Are you saying that he doesn't prefer that I put change in a homeless man's cup over killing a pizza delivery boy? Why is God "love" instead of "hate"? Why is God "good" instead of "bad"? If it's just His nature to be these things, then his attributes are arbitrary. And deferring to His nature doesn't get you out of the boat you think I'm in.

Would preventing someone else from participating in existence by murdering them be good? I don't see how. It's a deprivation, not a participation.

I can't cause someone to cease to exist in most versions of theism. If there's an afterlife of any kind, that poor pizza boy still exists.

How do they actually matter? They may subjectively have some arbitrary importance to you, and there's no reason to refrain from subjective valuation (because there's no reason for anything), but is the universe going to care if we blow ourselves up tomorrow? Presumably not.

It seems you value what the universe thinks of your actions. You can subjectively find value in that if you want. I think it's a bit silly. But that's the great thing about purely subjective opinions. They aren't correct or incorrect. They aren't measured in that dimension. It would be a bit like asking how long a certain point is in mathematics. So I can have opinions about your opinions and vice versa. The trouble is when people start thinking their subjective opinions are objective facts. Objective facts can be demonstrated. Demonstrate that values which persist eternally are somehow more valuable or matter more or have more meaning than values which cease to be eventually.

 

[gaara4158]

Do you mind if i steal that for my signature?

Go right ahead!

Would you consider the universe sentient and alive? The only way the universe can be said to care about things is if you subscribe to a pretty strong form of pantheism in which the universe itself has personhood. Otherwise, it does not care about things just because we do. It is an inanimate object.

I really don’t mind that. Sagan famously mused that we are a way for the universe to know itself. You cannot ignore the fact that people care about things just because the collective of all things in the cosmos isn’t itself a caring entity.

 

[apogee]

Go right ahead!


I really don’t mind that. Sagan famously mused that we are a way for the universe to know itself. You cannot ignore the fact that people care about things just because the collective of all things in the cosmos isn’t itself a caring entity.

Personally, I'd go slightly further than that, in that materially, any separation between yourself and the rest of the cosmos is arguably an arbitrary one. So in a sense, it's legitimate for you from your perspective to say 'I am the universe'. Although, I'm not going to claim any exclusivity on that for now. (I might do after I've had a cup of tea)

 

[Silmarien]

I already addressed this straw man "ice cream is the value I base all morals on" nonsense back in post #416. You failed to address my response then, and you're rolling it out again which doesn't lend your argument much credibility.

What on earth are you going on about? It's not a strawman; it's an analogy. You chose it, and my point is that it's actually a good one for demonstrating precisely what people mean when they say that existence is ultimately absurd. This has nothing to do with your morals, whatever they might be.

If you really believe that someone could derive genuine meaning out of life from chocolate ice cream, I'm not sure what to say to you.

Another straw man. Thanks, "So's Law". I gave you a very specific situation in which it would be morally wrong because an analysis of the risk to reward ratio is far too low, and somehow you concluded that all risk is greater than any reward. Nope. I never said any such thing.

It's not a strawman. Notions of risk and reward do not clearly have anything to do with morality. Few people would consider jumping in front of a bullet for someone to be an immoral act. In the situations that you mentioned, it would certainly be more sensible to get help than to get yourself killed too, but this does not make trying to play the hero immoral. Just stupid.

Fair enough as far as your explanation goes. But if there's no reason to think it's true other than "hope", I'd say it can be dismissed. I mean, if the only reason to think it might be intrinsically good is because of subjective opinion that might just coincide with objective truth, I might be recognizing intrinsically good taste in chocolate ice cream. Some people disagree on the taste of chocolate ice cream, some people disagree on the goodness of existence. There's really no way to know for sure.

Of course there's no way to be sure. But if you're going to toss away the idea that things may have objective value simply because we're not in a position to know for certain, you are going to be left subjectively valuing things that you think have no intrinsic worth. This is the paradox at the heart of your position.

I never said God had to change His stance on anything. His likes and dislikes are unchanging, fine. His preferences are a part of His nature, sure. Are you saying that he doesn't prefer that I put change in a homeless man's cup over killing a pizza delivery boy? Why is God "love" instead of "hate"? Why is God "good" instead of "bad"? If it's just His nature to be these things, then his attributes are arbitrary. And deferring to His nature doesn't get you out of the boat you think I'm in.

Depends on your theology. I would hold that claiming that God is good only really makes sense in a Trinitarian context, since if the Ground of Being is interpersonal, as orthodox Christians claim, if there is a communal aspect to the nature of God, then it would follow that God is love in an intersubjective sense. (I say this despite being very much on the fence about Christianity.)

Some people also use the ontological argument and ask what it would mean for something to exist by its own nature. God must be good because if he were not, he would be imperfect. I am not sure that this works, but it is an interesting attempt.

We're not really in the same boat here. The theist can say that God is good and say that it is a mystery what this really means. The atheistic Platonist can do something similar and say that the Good really exists as an ideal independently of us, though they will have trouble resisting certain theistic arguments if this is their starting point. The relativist, on the other hand, is insisting that none of this stuff has any basis in reality. Morality is a matter of personal preference. That is a very different boat to be in.

Demonstrate that values which persist eternally are somehow more valuable or matter more or have more meaning than values which cease to be eventually.

I don't really see a challenge here. Objectively speaking, values only have meaning if they are grounded in reality. That is what it means for them to be objective. If values are objectively real, they clearly have more meaning than if they are not.

If you think your values are just a matter of personal preference and another set would be equally valid under different circumstances, then those values do not have as much importance as they would if you considered them universal. And this is subjectively speaking: if you do not think your values are binding, there is less meaning to them than there would be if you thought they were.

 

[Silmarien]

I really don’t mind that. Sagan famously mused that we are a way for the universe to know itself. You cannot ignore the fact that people care about things just because the collective of all things in the cosmos isn’t itself a caring entity.

You know, it's not very clear to me that Sagan was actually an atheist. Once you start talking about the universe like that, you end up in Einsteinian territory, talking about the music of the spheres. There's something deeply teleological and religious about making these types of statements.

If we are the way for the universe to know itself, then we are attributing agency to the universe in some sense. Inherent purpose behind the workings of reality gets let back in the back door, so you can say once more that there is meaning behind things. You've walked past the boundaries of scientific knowledge if you go down this route, though.

I don't have much of a quarrel with pantheism. I'm unconvinced that it adequately describes reality as we experience it, but it's an interesting approach.

 

[gaara4158]

You know, it's not very clear to me that Sagan was actually an atheist. Once you start talking about the universe like that, you end up in Einsteinian territory, talking about the music of the spheres. There's something deeply teleological and religious about making these types of statements.

If we are the way for the universe to know itself, then we are attributing agency to the universe in some sense. Inherent purpose behind the workings of reality gets let back in the back door, so you can say once more that there is meaning behind things. You've walked past the boundaries of scientific knowledge if you go down this route, though.

I don't have much of a quarrel with pantheism. I'm unconvinced that it adequately describes reality as we experience it, but it's an interesting approach.

I’m not uncomfortable aligning myself with Sagan, Einstein, and (loosely) Spinoza. It’s as good a perspective as any when it comes to finding meaning in the universe. To take it literally does commit the fallacy of composition, but it’s not necessary to do that just to acknowledge that we, as part of the universe, create meaning and therefore meaning does exist in the universe. You can reject this, but it’s entirely arbitrary to deny the existence of meaning in the universe just because it’s subjective.

 

[Moral Orel]

What on earth are you going on about? It's not a strawman; it's an analogy. You chose it, and my point is that it's actually a good one for demonstrating precisely what people mean when they say that existence is ultimately absurd. This has nothing to do with your morals, whatever they might be.

If you really believe that someone could derive genuine meaning out of life from chocolate ice cream, I'm not sure what to say to you.

I never said chocolate ice cream is divine. I never said chocolate ice cream was the only thing of value. This is what you keep asserting, even though it's patently false, therefore straw man.

It's not a strawman. Notions of risk and reward do not clearly have anything to do with morality. Few people would consider jumping in front of a bullet for someone to be an immoral act. In the situations that you mentioned, it would certainly be more sensible to get help than to get yourself killed too, but this does not make trying to play the hero immoral. Just stupid.

I would say that abandoning your family is morally bad, you would say it is just stupid. The straw man comes from comparing well trained, well equipped personal working in their field with a random joe lacking all of those things. It doesn't matter if you think risk v reward shouldn't be considered in moral decision making, you're talking about my position and you're misrepresenting it.

Also, if someone jumped in front of a bullet for Pol Pot, I bet a lot of people would call that an immoral act.

Of course there's no way to be sure. But if you're going to toss away the idea that things may have objective value simply because we're not in a position to know for certain, you are going to be left subjectively valuing things that you think have no intrinsic worth. This is the paradox at the heart of your position.

What is the unit of measurement for worth, or value, or importance? It seems like you aren't talking about objective things. So how about this, my subjective feelings have intrinsic worth. So do yours, so does everyones. And if someone's feelings make them values that most people think are bad, well then there's something wrong with them. Don't waste your time asking for evidence that they do other than me valuing them, there isn't any. I'll just view them that way to feel better. Is there evidence that they don't have intrinsic worth?

Depends on your theology. I would hold that claiming that God is good only really makes sense in a Trinitarian context, since if the Ground of Being is interpersonal, as orthodox Christians claim, if there is a communal aspect to the nature of God, then it would follow that God is love in an intersubjective sense. (I say this despite being very much on the fence about Christianity.)

Some people also use the ontological argument and ask what it would mean for something to exist by its own nature. God must be good because if he were not, he would be imperfect. I am not sure that this works, but it is an interesting attempt.

We're not really in the same boat here. The theist can say that God is good and say that it is a mystery what this really means. The atheistic Platonist can do something similar and say that the Good really exists as an ideal independently of us, though they will have trouble resisting certain theistic arguments if this is their starting point. The relativist, on the other hand, is insisting that none of this stuff has any basis in reality. Morality is a matter of personal preference. That is a very different boat to be in.

Here we go again. I'm not a moral relativist. Subjectivity and relativity are not comparable. You do understand the difference, right?

For the theist, why would you say something that you don't understand what you're saying? "God is good. I dunno what that means, just putting it out there". More to the point, you've said that God can't change, being timeless and all, and He doesn't choose anything about his nature, so if we're going to throw the word "arbitrary" around, it absolutely applies in His situation.

I don't really see a challenge here. Objectively speaking, values only have meaning if they are grounded in reality. That is what it means for them to be objective. If values are objectively real, they clearly have more meaning than if they are not.

If you think your values are just a matter of personal preference and another set would be equally valid under different circumstances, then those values do not have as much importance as they would if you considered them universal. And this is subjectively speaking: if you do not think your values are binding, there is less meaning to them than there would be if you thought they were.

Again, what is the unit of measurement for meaning that can objectively show one thing having more meaning than something else? It's redundant to say, "a value has meaning". If it is valued, then it has meaning. That's what "having meaning"... well... means. My subjective feelings are real, so anything value I have because of those subjective feelings is real also. How are subjective feelings not real?

 

[Silmarien]

I’m not uncomfortable aligning myself with Sagan, Einstein, and (loosely) Spinoza. It’s as good a perspective as any when it comes to finding meaning in the universe. To take it literally does commit the fallacy of composition, but it’s not necessary to do that just to acknowledge that we, as part of the universe, create meaning and therefore meaning does exist in the universe. You can reject this, but it’s entirely arbitrary to deny the existence of meaning in the universe just because it’s subjective.

You know, I was going to mention Spinoza, but I was paging through the table of contents of my old Spinoza readings the other day, and I realized that the whole thing was written in good old scholasticism. So much so that I'm no longer really sure his modern proponents ever understood him at all. I need to reread him at some point to have a more informed opinion.

As for the composition fallacy, you can't really say that entire schools of thought commit fallacies. Individual arguments can, but as long as you work the argument out from your premises to your conclusion without skipping steps, you do not automatically commit fallacies. I cannot imagine any serious pantheist would argue, "We are alive, and we are part of the universe, therefore the universe must be alive as well. And let's tack on some divine attributes just because."

Though as for the question of meaning, how can you subjectively create anything? You could as easily say that we have subjective experiences of God, and because this idea of God now exists, you cannot deny the existence of God. It isn't arbitrary to reject something's existence because it's subjective--my question would be whether it's even coherent to say that something only exists subjectively. There are underlying issues here: do we actually create meaning? What are we really referring to with the word "meaning," and how does one go about creating it at all?

Here we go again. I'm not a moral relativist. Subjectivity and relativity are not comparable. You do understand the difference, right?

If morality is purely subjective but somehow exists, that means it varies from person to person and society to society. This position is called moral relativism.

If you are neither a moral relativist, nor a moral realist, nor a moral nihilist, I am not sure what you are.

 

[Moral Orel]

If morality is purely subjective but somehow exists, that means it varies from person to person and society to society. This position is called moral relativism.

If you are neither a moral relativist, nor a moral realist, nor a moral nihilist, I am not sure what you are.

Ethical Subjectivism - By Branch / Doctrine - The Basics of Philosophy
Moral relativism is compatible with moral subjectivism, but they aren't the same thing.

 

[Silmarien]

Ethical Subjectivism - By Branch / Doctrine - The Basics of Philosophy
Moral relativism is compatible with moral subjectivism, but they aren't the same thing.

You're going to have fun if you try to justify being an absolutist and an anti-realist at the same time. Good luck arguing that your subjective feelings about what is right and wrong, while lacking any independent truth value except what they say about your personal preferences, somehow apply universally to all people.

 

[Moral Orel]

You're going to have fun if you try to justify being an absolutist and an anti-realist at the same time. Good luck arguing that your subjective feelings about what is right and wrong, while lacking any independent truth value except what they say about your personal preferences, somehow apply universally to all people.

I can't do that because I'm not making that claim. Never did.

 

[apogee]

If we are the way for the universe to know itself, then we are attributing agency to the universe in some sense.

Sorry my bad. I'm thinking it also implies that the universe is a Trump voter, with dissociative identity disorder and an IQ of precisely 100.

Which I hope we can all agree us a truly terrifying prospect, and not one to be hoped for.

 

[joinfree]

Let's say I was an atheist and for some reason I wanted to kill myself. I told you that I hated my life and wanted to end it. Being an atheist, I know that there is no afterlife and I will simply cease to exist. I also know that the second law of thermodynamics proves that the universe is dying and when that time happens, all humanity will die too. So because all humanity will one day die and cease to exist, the universe will ultimately be no different than if humanity never existed at all. So who cares if my death hurts other people, they will eventually die and all memory of hurt will cease to exist. So atheist, talk me out of suicide. Why should I not kill myself? Explain why life and existence isn't futile? Good luck.

I am not an atheist, but I am expert on the field. You do not understand, what is atheism actually. The principles of it are simple:
1. All people do know, that God exist. Because faith is faithfulness to knowledge. If there is no faith, remains the knowledge.
2. Atheists can (but have no right) to say, that there is no God. Because satan is liar.
3. When atheists pass into better world they whisper to God: "I'm sorry, Lord". Remember: Steven Hawking (the leading atheist) has got church funeral.

 

[Silmarien]

I can't do that because I'm not making that claim. Never did.

Alright. That puts us back at relativism.

 

[Moral Orel]

Alright. That puts us back at relativism.

Nope. You should read the link I gave you:

An Ethical Subjectivist would argue that the statement "Stalin was evil" expresses a strong dislike for the sorts of things that Stalin did, but it does not follow that it is true (or false) that Stalin was in fact evil. Another person who disagrees with the statement on purely moral grounds (while in agreement with all non-evaluative facts about Stalin) is not making an intellectual error, but simply has a different attitude.​

My moral statements aren't true or false except to the extent that it is true that I feel a certain way. "True" and "false" aren't dimensions that subjective feelings are measured in. Relativism would say that some things are factually right for some while being factually wrong for others. While casually "right and wrong" might be interchanged with "good and bad" (even by me) they aren't appropriate words to use with subjectivity because these aren't objective facts.

Did you forget to support your position? It doesn't matter if I'm wrong, you need to prove your case. So can you show me the objectively correct unit of measurement for value so that we can measure whether the things I value are as valuable as the things you value? You blew off an entire post talking about your position to insist that your straw man of my position was accurate based on your ignorance of moral subjectivity.

 

[Silmarien]

Nope. You should read the link I gave you:

An Ethical Subjectivist would argue that the statement "Stalin was evil" expresses a strong dislike for the sorts of things that Stalin did, but it does not follow that it is true (or false) that Stalin was in fact evil. Another person who disagrees with the statement on purely moral grounds (while in agreement with all non-evaluative facts about Stalin) is not making an intellectual error, but simply has a different attitude.​

My moral statements aren't true or false except to the extent that it is true that I feel a certain way. "True" and "false" aren't dimensions that subjective feelings are measured in. Relativism would say that some things are factually right for some while being factually wrong for others. While casually "right and wrong" might be interchanged with "good and bad" (even by me) they aren't appropriate words to use with subjectivity because these aren't objective facts.

Did you forget to support your position? It doesn't matter if I'm wrong, you need to prove your case. So can you show me the objectively correct unit of measurement for value so that we can measure whether the things I value are as valuable as the things you value? You blew off an entire post talking about your position to insist that your straw man of my position was accurate based on your ignorance of moral subjectivity.

My position is that your position entails nihilism. Which... yeah. This is pretty nihilistic. You can feel a certain way about things, but morality in anything resembling the traditional sense clearly does not exist. I assumed you were a relativist because you kept on refusing the nihilist label, but this is pretty much textbook nihilism now. If you deny that there is truth value to the claim that something is good or evil, you are a nihilist.

 

[Moral Orel]

My position is that your position entails nihilism. Which... yeah. This is pretty nihilistic. You can feel a certain way about things, but morality in anything resembling the traditional sense clearly does not exist. I assumed you were a relativist because you kept on refusing the nihilist label, but this is pretty much textbook nihilism now. If you deny that there is truth value to the claim that something is good or evil, you are a nihilist.

Like I said, maybe, since it doesn't sound all that bad. My sticking point is when you make the jump between "there's no intrinsic value therefore there is no value" though. I would agree that there's no reason to believe in intrinsic value, frankly that just sounds like trying to work in divine purpose the same way other folks try to work in divine design. I would say that's not what value is or ever was to begin with, and trying to insist on "intrinsic value" requires a redefining of the word "value".

However, as I stated earlier, an atheist doesn't have to be a nihilist if he just believes that our subjective feelings have intrinsic value. I don't have to show evidence that it's true other than the fact that people value their own feelings. And I don't have to explain where that intrinsic value comes from because I can just call it a mystery.

So my actual position might be nihilistic-ish, but atheism doesn't necessarily entail nihilism because I don't need to believe in any god(s) to believe something like "human emotion has intrinsic value". Agreed?

 

[Silmarien]

So my actual position might be nihilistic-ish, but atheism doesn't necessarily entail nihilism because I don't need to believe in any god(s) to believe something like "human emotion has intrinsic value". Agreed?

No, not really. I see no reason to hold that human emotion has any value at all. In fact, you seem to be contradicting yourself, saying first that there is no reason to believe in intrinsic value and then changing your mind and holding that subjective feelings do have intrinsic value. I wouldn't deny that there are people out there who believe they do, but it just looks like a complicated game of charades to me. And worse, a self-indulgent one that is unlikely to hold up to genuine moral conflict.

I would agree that an atheist need not be a moral nihilist because an atheist can actually be a moral realist instead.

 

[Moral Orel]

No, not really. I see no reason to hold that human emotion has any value at all. In fact, you seem to be contradicting yourself, saying first that there is no reason to believe in intrinsic value and then changing your mind and holding that subjective feelings do have intrinsic value. I wouldn't deny that there are people out there who believe they do, but it just looks like a complicated game of charades to me. And worse, a self-indulgent one that is unlikely to hold up to genuine moral conflict.

I'm not saying that I'm actually changing my views, I'm just saying I could in order to not be considered nihilistic without having to turn to nihilism. The only correction I'll add is that it isn't self indulgent as long as empathy exists, because if Tom feels bad because Harry feels bad, then What I love right here, though, is that I modeled my justification for deciding that human emotion has intrinsic value after the way you've justified deciding existence is objectively good, yet you call it a "complicated game of charades".

Remember, when we subjectively evaluate existence as good for individual subjective reasons we could be simply recognizing that it is intrinsically good, although there's no evidence for it? And when asked about what it means for God to be good by His nature, the theist can simply respond that it's a mystery what that means? All I did was use your epistemology for the belief in existence being intrinsically good and applied it to human emotions being intrinsically good.

I would agree that an atheist need not be a moral nihilist because an atheist can actually be a moral realist instead.

So then you were wrong when you said:

What can you say to someone who's glanced at the nihilistic heart of atheism and can't look away again?

Atheism is not nihilistic at its "heart". So we both learned something!

 

[Silmarien]

Remember, when we subjectively evaluate existence as good for individual subjective reasons we could be simply recognizing that it is intrinsically good, although there's no evidence for it? And when asked about what it means for God to be good by His nature, the theist can simply respond that it's a mystery what that means? All I did was use your epistemology for the belief in existence being intrinsically good and applied it to human emotions being intrinsically good.

No, the atheist cannot actually appeal to mystery. The theist can say that God is inherently good and that this is where all of our concepts of morality ultimately spring from, but unless the atheist is going to be a Platonist and claim that the Good actually exists as an aspect of reality, this path is not open. You cannot appeal to a mystery if you reject the existence of said mystery.

Atheism is not nihilistic at its "heart". So we both learned something!

No, I would still say that atheism is nihilistic at its heart. This does not mean any particular atheist is barred from being a moral realist, though. You could take your cues from John Stuart Mill and adopt a form of utilitarianism, or follow Philippa Foot into virtue ethics. Or both. But at the end of the day, there's still no point to anything.