I also argue there's a way of refuting or seeing through both conventional atheism and theism (link below).

But if "God" is empty, as atheists like Kai Nelson and the positivists argued decades ago, that surely counts more against theism than atheism. If theism is semantically empty, then of course atheism is warranted, just as we'd be justified in opposing a religion based on any meaningless string of syllables. If theism is empty, the justification of atheism goes without saying.

This is only superficially paradoxical, I think. Granted, there would be nothing for the atheist to debate, but that overlooks the illusion that God is real after all, which the theist has laboured to sustain for millennia. Atheists would still have work to do in showing that, appearances to the contrary, religious language is vacuous.

But I agree with the sentiment of your remarks. There are indeed more and less enlightened ways of looking at religion and the sacred. I think of these as esoteric and exoteric, subversive and conventional interpretations.

https://medium.com/@benjamincain8/why-theism-and-atheism-are-laughable-53977551c726?source=friends_link&sk=82d51ca24a4c524b14c36767904c920e