Actually, that is the position of some, but not all, Christians.
It would appear to be an effort to shoehorn everyone into your particular belief. Traditionally, Satanists are those who oppose God, believing that God is good and simply wishing to do otherwise.
A person who opposed God because he or she believed God to be evil would not actually be a Satanist (outside the shoehorned category of a limited number of Christians), but anti-theist does seem to identify them.
Has anyone in this thread actually asserted that?
I would assert that militant persons of any world view tend to be less common than persons who are not militant, but certainly, nearly every world view (excepting, perhaps, that of the Sub-Genius) has its militant adherents.
As to my original point: I think I have expressed my perspective and further discussion is liable to hijack this thread, so I’m not going to pursue that sub-thread.
I also want to mention that there is a difference to:
Anti-theism seems to be the opposition to a God that the Anti-theist knows exists, but just disagrees with.
And others who are against certain faiths and religions because they think it’s bunk, or harmful to society, and they don’t believe in their God, or possibly don’t believe in God at all. I don’t know the term of this however.
An iconoclast is one who wishes to destroy the imagery or symbolism employed by a group. (Literally, actually.) It is often employed to identify a person whose individualsim puts them at odds with the memes (SORRY) of society.
Well, yes, but the use has broadened a bit since Byzantine times. And I’d argue that the root cultural memes of our current society (in the West, anyway) ARE primarily religious and particularly Judeo-Christian.
I do not disagree with that. I still think the word is more frequently directed against the imagery (although not the physical shattering of statues) than it is toward actually overturning the core beliefs, but I suppose I may have been reading too many literary essays and not enough political ones.