I think we largely agree. Your comment is essentially a restatement of my point. Theism is a belief that they are gods, and atheism is a lack of belief that there are gods. That lack of belief can either come from a positive belief that there are no gods, or a withholding of belief one way or the other.

Speaking about myself specifically, it is equally untrue to say that I believe there are gods as it is to say that I believe there are no gods. The former means I am an atheist, and the latter means I am an agnostic. Both labels apply to me.

It’s the same thing really, but without the “negative” connotations usually attributed to atheism or atheists. “See, I’m not really an atheist but agnostic. It means I’m not to be expelled from this community as a heretic”

This, basically. At least that’s how I used it. As a kid living in the bible belt, admitting you were an atheist was, in their eyes, literally no different than being a cannibalistic devil worshipper. Agnostic was easier for them to swallow (albeit because odds are high that most of them didn’t even know what it meant, and figured it was some sect of Christianity they were unfamiliar with).

When I got older, and escaped the institutional bigotry woven into nearly every facet of society down in the bible belt…the lovely place where our biology teacher also headed the bible club and refused to teach evolution yet somehow still had a job as a biology teacher in the public school system, as a small example…that was when I finally gained the confidence to self-describe as an atheist.

“See, I’m not really an atheist but agnostic. It means I’m not to be expelled from this community as a heretic”

I identity with this. When I was younger I identified as agnostic, as I saw it as a more socially acceptable option than atheism which allowed me to not have to pretend to be religious.

But I’ve identified as atheist for many years now. In my case by the time I did, everyone of significance in my life was nonreligious.

It’s the same thing really, but without the “negative” connotations usually attributed to atheism or atheists.

Atheists and Agnostics would obviously disagree. There’s a core philosophical difference between being convinced in the negative and being unconvinced in the affirmative.

That said, what are the consequences of being a Theist, an Atheist, or an Agnostic? I might argue that Theists and Atheists have history of leveraging their confidence into an active policy of discrimination and bigotry. Whether you’re a Chinese Communist cracking down on under-18 church attendance or an Israeli Zionist conducting a pogrom against Palestinians, there’s a habit of imbuing your personal beliefs with political teeth.

“See, I’m not really an atheist but agnostic. It means I’m not to be expelled from this community as a heretic”

The flip side of this being, “I’m not expelling you from the community for excessive display of religious ferver”.

It’s easier to sympathize with avowed Atheists in nations where atheism is a disenfranchised minority. But as soon as you give someone like Christopher Hitchens or Sam Harris an ounce of political capital, they start cheer leading a genocide.

That, I think, is a real tangible difference. Agnostics tend not to begrudge other ideologies in the same way.

I mean… No? Maybe? Certainly not aliens as in biologically evolved creatures from another planet are involved, what is so hard to understand about that? Alien as in something completely foreign and unrecognizable to the human brain, sure.

Agnosticism isn’t a lack of certainty; it’s a lack of knowledge. I am agnostic about many, many things. For example, Bigfoot. I haven’t seen any good evidence for the existence of Bigfoot (i.e., I have no knowledge of the existence of Bigfoot), so I don’t believe in Bigfoot. I’m the same way with the existence of gods.

For simplicity, I’ve always explained agnosticism as the belief that “I don’t know and neither do you”.

i call myself a devout agnostic. the justaposition of those words is inherently absurd since part of agnosticism and identifying as such is believing there is value to studying theology even if you yourself don’t believe the theologies you’re studying because ultimately prior to colonization, religion was how groups of people encoded and passed along their wisdom. however saying “devout agnostic” throws people enough off balance enough to introduce them to these concepts since so many say with their whole chest that they’re something when traditionally these terms have meant something else to the people who use them.

for example, an astounding (at least to me) number of people say quakers and unitarians aren’t christians. when you dig down on this you often find that this position is rooted in a believe (both positive and negative) that the fundamental mechanism and experience of christianity is trauma. however, when you look at the broader world of religion, you find that that’s mostly only Christian denominations rooted in the theologies of the roman empire such as roman catholicism and the various european orthodoxies like Greek and russian. however, the oldest denomination, Ethiopian Orthodox, would i think to the people who say quakers and unitarians aren’t christians, seem very unchistian. for that matter, i think so would Native America Christianity, Oriental Orthodox, and Armenianism. (fun fact, the Unitarian church is rooted in Oriental Orthodox, which is either the second or third oldest christian denomination)

What’s the proof that there is no deity at all?

God, my mother is going to cackle at that one

The last also happens in the absence of religious motivation quite a bit.

For real. Literally you can just say, “You are the problem. All girls and women are the problem.” There’s zero need to bring God into the equation to live a good, normal life.

It’s a sarcastic counter to the typical arguments that there’s no inherent morality in human culture without religion. You know, people don’t naturally have empathy, so they have to be taught to simulate empathy because they beleive they’ll be judged when they die.

Generally in atheistic communities discourse around religion tends to be around where religion is used to replace science, often as a means of control of behavior and othering of out groups.

Speculating, that is likely because many people join these communities after being ostracized or faced abuse at the hands of people in the in-group so it makes sense that those are the aspects of religion that stand out most to them are those aspects.

There is a reason communities have had religious and spiritual practices for millennia, they do provide concrete benefits and social good in terms of community building and as forms of cultural preservation and providing support systems, both emotional and material. Those aspects tend not to be talked about in atheistic and skeptic communities. Not saying they’re obligated to balance every negative comment with a positive one out of some misguided sense of fairness or balanced discourse but if you’re interested in having some kind of well rounded view of the world, it is helpful to understand positive aspects of things you generally disagree with.

In this case, if someone is arguing religion be removed completely it is important to address the loss of positive aspects that keep people in a religion otherwise you’re just going to be yelling at a wall and not actually doing anything or putting people off by assuming everyone who holds any kind of religious belief or engages in religious rituals is some kind of brainwashed cultist.

That is not true. There are gnostic athiests and agnostic deists.

As much as they are a religion legally, they are atheists and their symbols are not religious, just fancy branding.

They are religious, because Satanism is a religion. I am a member of TST and a religious Satanist. This is covered in the FAQ on TST’s website.

TST is an atheistic religion. That is not a contradiction because you don’t need to believe in gods to have a religion (see also Buddhism).

They did try to put a baphomet statue in front of a 10 commandments monument in Arkansas. They are fighting for a plurality of religion, not secularism.
If I wanted to contribute to a secular cause, I would much rather contribute to a secular organization to begin with.

TST does not proselytize

But the only times you hear of them is when people are trying to get more folk implied (or when they send a lawsuit, but that’s an other story). TST plays the card of a non profit when they don’t want to be associated with religious weirdos, and the card of religion when they want a special treatment. In the end it’s a knockoff religion that hijacked the name “satanism” while replicating what they denounce of christians.

Fire is bad so we need to recruit more firefighters to fight it.

It’s much closer to putting up advertisement against advertisement.

They are just an NGO.

That’s not true. It’s a bunch of for-profit organizations coupled with a recognized nonprofit church so they can be exempted from taxation. See here : https://the.satanic.wiki/index.php/The_Satanic_Wiki . Also, as a supposedly non-profit org, they do not disclose their financial information, which is usually a big red flag.