Oh there are self-identified antitheists out there, and they fall under atheism but aren't the sum of atheism. To be honest I think they're part of the problem, minority though they may be.
I call myself an antitheist for lack of a better word to describe somebody that considers organized, politicized Christianity in the US (and Islam elsewhere) to be a problem and to have a net negative. I am not the enemy of theists and have no complaint with most forms of theism or any form of personal, private religion, which is why I don't like the word.
I happen to object to the incessant efforts of the American church to pierce the church-state wall, to marginalize and demonize atheists and homosexuals, to teach that man is a failed race born spiritually sick and worthy of punishment for being human, for attempting to undermine respect for science and scientists, to teach that the body is a source of shame and that one should feel guilt over most kinds of consensual sex, that academic institutions from public schools to universities are insidious propagandizers and that one's children should be kept out of them, that human society is basically evil and the world something to disengage from as much as possible, the war on reproductive freedom and proper sex education, Christian exceptionalism (our billboards, invocations, and religious displays on government property are OK, yours aren't), teaching that suffering is good, the idea that being unable to impose your form of religion on others is persecution, diverting credit and gratitude due human beings to an unseen god, and more.
Objecting to all of that, and finding not much of value on the other side of the balance sheet creditable to organized, politicized Christianity, leads one to think that the less of that in the world, the better. That is what I mean by antitheism, and I doubt that you would call holding those ideas part of any problem.
Perhaps you're referring to atheistic activism. For somebody like me, that is limited to giving sincerely believed, carefully considered, and constructively offered opinions as politely as I can, but recognizing that that will cause many to be personally offended and react with anger or resentment.
I don't see any problem there, either - at least not on my end.
I also refute many claims from Christians about atheists, usually by showing how the criticism applies more to Christianity than to the unbelievers. Common examples would be when atheists are described as lacking purpose or meaning in their lives, to be trying to escape accountability, to have no basis for moral behavior, to be spiritually dead, to be closed-minded, to not understand what love and mercy are, etc.. It is very easy to not only to rebut these charges, but to show that they all apply to Christianity more so.
Many Christians won't like that either. They probably won't like this post, either, but is that a problem, or a reason for me to censor these ideas? People who come to Religious Forums to promote their ideas, many making derogatory claims about atheists and atheism, have no right in my opinion to be offended by answers that contradict their claims, and if they are, that's unfortunate, but that's their choice. They need to understand that contradictory opinions are not a sign of hating Christians, hating God, or satanic influence.
Is any of this what you mean by the problem? I see it as working toward a better world.
