I'm a Satanist. The term Satanist, in this case, meaning:
1. Follows the Crowley-an "True Will", as opposed to external wills (e.g., gods or leaders) or ideals for their own sake
2. Indulges knowingly and openly, as opposed to in denial or preceding regret
3. Works towards the future, from the present, using skills of the past, utilizing human faculties such as reason and emotion, including derivatives of either, such as magick.
4. Analyzes ideas and systems of ideas based on their respective merit, and not on pre-existing dogma or other intellectual baggage
As you might notice, I incorporate some elements of Thelema into my personal philosophy, though I am largely influenced by the LaVeyan ritual and symbol system, and am also heavily influenced by Dark Doctrine. I am ignostic (not agnostic), meaning that I think terms such as 'agnostic' and 'atheist' are meaningless, as they assume too much about the nature of god.
Basically, I think that it doesn't matter whether or not the god someone believes in is real, since the fact that they can believe sans observable evidence (of course this might not be the case; I can't be everywhere at once nor examine all possible theological positions in my post) does not change the fact that the very /idea/ of the respective god can enact change in an individual or culture, thus carrying out the role of 'god' regardless of existence.
Whether or not Allah is real is meaningless; if Allah does not exist, then billions of people will still have lived their lives according to the associated dogma, and thus the impact of this false savior is just as real as if Allah *did* exist, except of course that those believers (if death is the end of the soul) will never realize they were wrong, and therefor their life would be exactly the same as if Allah was real.
Thus, I incorporate some types of deity-worship, or more accurately I hold several archetypes in high esteem, such as the Lucifer archetype, as espoused in the biblical Satan or Greek Prometheus, the archetype of pride (Islamic Iblis and Greek Prometheus), Pan, etc. Whether or not these figures exist physically is irrelevant, as the ideas associated with each are real in themselves, and thus can be useful. I also incorporate self-deification: If one follows their own will, for the sake of their own will, decides on their own ethical system, has extensive knowledge about the nature of reality (such as is possible through modern science), and has complete control over the self's actions, then isn't that person just as real of a 'god' as any other? If anything, the self-god in such a case is even more real than the literary gods, at least subjectively.
I am also a moral nihilist, in that I reject the existence of objective moral standards; what would an objective morality mean? Would it be like the laws of physics, whereby some things you simply cannot do? Would it cause physical harm on those who break the moral code? Would it apply to humans and not animals, or only to sentient beings? If an objective morality exists, then I can think of two possible situations:
1. Either the objective morality has never been broken by humans
2. Based on the continually changing cultural, societal, and individual constructs of ethics/morality, it /has/ been broken, but there have been no consequences observable to humans
In either case, the existence of objective morality would be utterly irrelevant to human affairs. That said, my main philosophical axiom is that an individual following it's own Will is desirable, and thus it follows that an ethical system that permits the most individuals following their Will as closely as possible would be preferable. As a result, I borrow roughly from the Wiccans the creed: "An it harms none, do as thou wilt". That is, following one's Will without preventing others from doing likewise is the purest of ethics. Of course, this does not necessarily translate well into the political spectrum--I reject the premise that there exists a perfect political-philosophical system, and that instead the ideal political system changes depending on various factors, and even then no system is anywhere near perfect.
When it comes to magick, I take a largely psychological viewpoint. It may very well be possible that ritual magick does in fact act in accordance with some sort of unknown force (though a perfectly naturalistic one) in order to create change, but having no evidence, I take the psychological route. Basically, I think that the purpose of magick is to do one of two things, neither one of which is mutually exclusive:
1. Give form to desires or emotions
2. Vent or alleviate desires or emotions
The purpose of a destruction ritual, therefor, would be to give form to the emotion of hate, as well as vent emotion itself, thereby allowing the magician to move on. I would say that venting and materializing emotions such as hate and lust is healthy, as denying, feeling guilty about, or trying to ignore such emotions can lead to negative physical effects (such as not being able to focus on terrestrial goals, or preventing the experience of better emotions). The purpose of ritual magick (as LaVey put it, the use of "intellectual decompression chambers") is that such acts enable a suspension of disbelief that is difficult or impossible under other circumstances, and thus allows a more efficient venting or materializing of emotions or desires. And for those unacquainted with the term 'magick', it was coined by Crowley as anything that (and I may butcher this quote) "creates change in conformity with will", with the 'k' added to differentiate from stage magic.
The reason for calling my tradition--or many others like it--satanism are varied. The following are probably the most common definitions of "satan", as well as the definitions that I use:
1. From Judeo-Christian mythology, Satan is a fallen angel that was kicked out of heaven for his pride and for giving the gift of knowledge to man. In this respect, the biblical figure of Satan is similar to Prometheus (who was punished by Zeus for giving man the gift of fire). In Islam, the equivalent of Satan is Iblis, a Jinn who was forced out of Heaven for refusing to bow to Adam (a comparison might be drawn with Icarus, given the factor of pride). There is also a large likelihood that pre-Christian figures such as Set contributed to the creation of the Satan mythos. One does not need to look far into ancient Egyptian and Sumerian mythology to see parallels arise, either. The attributes of these characters fits with my first definition of Satanism.
2. Satan, which in Hebrew means "opposer" or "accuser", can be a term used to describe any number of philosophies or individuals who "oppose" the spiritual orthodox, especially the Right Hand Path, and in general represents questioning tightly-held assumptions and other things taken for granted. This seems to be the definition that many within the Church of Satan use, and fits with my 4th definition of Satanism.
3. In Dark Doctrine, it has been suggested that the origin of the term Satan can be found in the sanskrit definitions of Sat (Being) and Tan (becoming), and infused with a number of concepts borrowed from pan-Indian mythology. In this tradition, Satan is seen as a non-personal motivating force throughout the universe, which brings order from chaos, or else brings about change. This fits with my 3rd definition of Satanism.