[Serious] Absolutes and Atheism

[Neo-Scholastic]

I only want to know what absolutes could an atheist believe in or does atheism entail a lack of belief in absolutes. If the former give me an example of an absolute. If not the god of classical theism, what fundamental principles are available to the atheist? How can one can be an atheist and justify not being a nihilist?

I don't see what atheism has to do with anything besides whether someone believes there is really a God (or god) or not. It's one opinion on one topic, it seems to me that asking whether it entails absolutes or nonabsolutes is like asking the same thing of people who think left-handers should have more representation in public office.

But the idea that there are no absolutes sounds like a non-starter to me. The statement 'there are no absolutes' strikes me as self-contradictory, so it can't be true. However, noticing that has nothing to do with me being an atheist.

First let me say for the sake of discussion I am accepting the premise that there is no god. And I am putting aside any attempt at apologetics. I also want to challenge my own opinion that Nietzsche was right about this. IMHO he was right that the theolgical collapse of Christianity took with it the foundations of Western metaphysics. No more grand ontological naratives. No more appeals to anything beyond a Promethian will where artifice tragicly defies absurdity.

Anyways.

So we are all atheists now. Well. Now what? Where will we go and who will be our guide? Revelation is not an option. Fine, we're clear about that. We can say Reason and Reality, but as noted by the trolls, those can quickly take on numinous overtones. So we have can we be sure that by evoking reason and reality we are not tacitly drawing on theistic assumptions which go back at least as far as Plato. That doesn't leave much that was not coopted by Christianty. So what intellectual tools remain that for an atheistic philosophy. Perhaps the lack of ontology is itself hallmark of an atheistic philosophy. I do not know so I am asking the question, and it really is not a very hard one. If we are going to build a productive atheistic philosophy what are the starting points? I am pompting and listening, that's all.

That said.

Your response tacit assumes that making a self-contradictory statements is an epistemic error. It suggests a necessary assumption yet why should we suppose that strongly felt intuitions of illogicalness actually correspond meaningfully with reality. IOW why must reality be logical?