Antitheist.

The word carries a picture: angry, smug, out to take something from you. That picture was not an accident, and it does a specific job. It makes the word unusable, and a word nobody will use is a position nobody has to answer.

So, plainly, what it denotes.

Atheism is an answer to one question: is there a god? The answer is no. Antitheism is an answer to a second, separate question: is religion, on balance, good for us? The answer is also no. The two are independent, and plenty of people hold the first while rejecting the second.

That second position is not a mood. It is a claim, and like any claim it is arguable. It says that religious institutions make factual assertions about the world, that those assertions are checkable, that a great many of them are false, and that a system which places its central claims beyond correction produces predictable harm. Each of those is the kind of statement that can be argued against with evidence. That is the point of stating it that way.

None of that is a claim about religious people, who are a cross-section of humanity and no worse than anyone else. Institutions and adherents are different objects. The argument here is with the first.

So that is the register this site works in. Claims get stated in the form their own defenders would accept, evidence gets set beside them, sources get listed so the work can be checked. There is no commentary on what a reader should feel about any of it, in either direction, because that would be a different subject and a less interesting one.

The caricature was doing a job. The job was to make sure the position never had to be addressed on its merits.