I prefer life with values; it's simply richer.
I think no on here is living without values. They simply think those are too personal/subjective to share, and that they’re able to find a public truth via science and that it’s a pubic, shared truth somehow makes it a truth that trumps all others. To not accept that as sufficient and try to “add” something that is “extra” is “escapism” because all religious people are presumed to be too weak-minded to accept the picture of reality that [they imagine that] science presents (as based on worst-case examples, as Dawkins and other similar anti-religion atheists rely upon to draw their examples of what the great enemy Religion really is at heart).
There’s a hypocrisy there, inasmuch as their own adoption of their truths, regardless of the source, are for “comfort” too as well as other pragmatic uses. This is how humans are, this is what humans do.
I don’t see “we are evolved” as more true than “the earth is sacred”. They can both be true. The one idea is widely taught to us by experts while the other’s not, but that does not make one The Truth and the other just an “extra” tidbit layered on. That’s just an unscientific, indemonstrable opinion (coming, interestingly, from persons with an apparent dismissive attitude toward those).
It’s no wonder it’d look like a dismissal of value and meaning, so if anyone comes here blabbering defensively “but we atheists have meaning!” then they should first consider how dismissive their talk often is regarding values and meaning.
If scientific or naturalistic pantheists find nature is sacred, they want to share what their values are, to invite like-minded individuals who share those values to come join them. They don’t have to prove to everyone that "sacred" is a fact embedded in the fabric of reality unless they say that it is (and they have expressly said otherwise). So arguing against it is just yet more “my values trump yours!” arguments.
Like I said in my first post, the obsession among most atheists is with metaphysics. They want you to say funny-sounding "woo" things so they can tell you how heretical (unscientific) it is. So
if the OP intended a discussion of naturalistic pantheism, as I’m betting he probably did, then the derail isn’t that No Robots introduced panpsychism but rather that atheists derailed it by imagining it had to do with “woo” imaginations that defy their so-called “scientific” worldview, rather than a matter of seeking one’s truths and happiness and chance to do some good in the world.