Definitions
The Left Hand Path (LHP): seeks individuation and self actualization, and values things such as an apathy towards culture, a respect for individuality and subjective experience, a rejection of external dogma, a focus on oneself or a small tribe, pragmatism, doubt, and godhood. The Right Hand Path (RHP): seeks submission and community, and values things like a control of and adherence to cultural values, a disregard for individuality/subjective experience, holding to external d-gma, a focus on community, a rejection of pragmatism and distaste for doubt, and a belief that we are inherently "lesser" beings. Questions
I like to ask the following questions of every individual, idea, or group:
Does this person/group/idea...
1. Allow for your individuation, or dictate it?
2. Promote individuality, or suppress it?
3. Disregard the status quo, seek to define/enforce it, or define themselves in relation to it?
4. Treat individual experience with pluralism, or exclusivism?
5. Promote a self discovered worldview, or preach an external d-gma?
6. Allow you to focus on what matters to you, or command what to care about? Embrace or reject pragmatism? 7. Encourage or shun doubt/skepticism? 8. See you as a divine being, or something lesser/fallen? See the majority of Theism, and the majority of Atheism, fall under the RHP. This makes it both interesting and frustrating to watch individuals who are basically on the same path, such as physicalists and monotheists, debate over who is better, when it doesn't even address the real problems. Let's ask these questions about both RHP theism and atheism, as well as my own LHP beliefs. (Note: I will use physicalism as an illustration of RHP atheism).
Illustrations
In RHP theism the only "individuation" allowed is that in line with what's deemed acceptable, and those who go against that are [bad]. In physicalism there is no individual at all, only the illusion of one, and it has no control but is deterministic. On the LHP, individuation in accordance with one's own will is central goal, and the objective existence of the Self is acknowledged. Again for RHP theism the only individuality is what's pre-approved, and in physicalism there's just a deterministic program. For the LHP its about your will, which is acknowledge as autonomous. Of course RHP theism has often sought to be the status quo, whether through politics, forced conversion, inquisitions, and any similar tool at their disposal. While not universal to physicalism, many seek the same as obvious in movements like anti-theism. Other atheists simply invert the status quo but are still bound to it like in Laveyan Satanism, when the status quo changes they must remain uniform or become irrelevant. For the LHP the journey is apathetic towards the status quo, you are you and if that fits or contradicts the status quo so be it. For RHP theism there is only one correct interpretation of anything divine, for example if you experience a god other than Yahweh it must have been an evil demon to Christianity. Most physicalism is the same, if someone experiences anything other than a godless universe they must be [wrong in ways that insult their intelligence and mental stability]. The LHP recognizes our experiences differ and there is not one simple, universal, monistic "way" to follow. If you experience gods maybe you are valid in polytheism, maybe if you don't you are valid in your atheism. It doesn't even matter much so long as you're allowing others to follow their will and not oppressing them, but both RHP theism and atheism are known to prefer the oppression side. All RHP religions are rooted in and defined by an external d-gma, whether that be a holy text, the words of authority, etc, and having a different d-gma is heretical. The same is often true of physicalism, all events, experiences, etc must be presumed to fit in a physicalist paradigm, lest one become labeled as [insult to intelligence] or something similar. For the LHP ones d-gma is their own, it isn't given by someone else or upheld by something else. D-gma may not even be the right word because it's a d-gma of one, and experience precedes d-gma rather than the other way around. In RHP theism we can easily see how you're supposed to care about X but not Y, pragmatism isn't encouraged. For instance you're supposed to help others and not be selfish, or you're supposed to go to services once a week, or you're suppose to give money to the org. It's harder to see in physicalism but think about it for a minute: how would a physicalist, or more specifically an anti theist, likely respond to someone who becomes a theist simply because it benefits them? They're all about "reason and fact over preference" and whatever, anti theism outright shuns all theism including pragmatic theism. On the LHP... do what works man. Gods work? Cool. Atheism works? Cool. Magic works? Cool. Prayer works? Cool. For RHP theism I think a lot of these are really obvious. For instance doubt and skepticism are generally [bad] and blind unyielding faith in the god is often required. Physicalism complicates things by posing as the result of skepticism, when ironically the skeptics weren't even sure matter existed at all. Epistemological unfriendliness (eg "all theists are [not smart] and theism cannot be rationally held") is mutually exclusive to skepticism. For the LHP, skepticism is the name of the game, question ALL authority even if they agree with you, question ALL cultural beliefs even if you share them. Crowley wrote to "doubt even if you doubt at all," doubt literally everything, always question, always play the devil's advocate. This is respectable, not evil or deserving of mockery. To the RHP theisms we are lesser beings, created in service to the gods, and we rely on the gods, whether for things like rain or things like salvation. We cannot reach our full potential on our own. To physicalism of course we are just deterministic meat machines. The LHP recognizes us as divine beings, possessing everything we need to reach whatever potential we want, and it recognizes that we are responsible for how we grow, not something external or deterministic.
Conclusion
Now if you think about these for a while, you may see my problem: most atheists and most theists are just promoting different interpretations of the same RHP ideology. It's should not be about god vs no god, but if ones path allows you to individuate as you wish, supports your individuality, is bound to a status quo, etc and so on. Tbh I don't actually care if a person believes in gods or not, but I sure care if they will allow me to be myself or force me to be something else, if they are epistemologically unfriendly or accepting of skepticism, if they value my own experiences as equal to theirs or not, etc. "Do you believe in god(s)" is so much less important than the questions above.