I think this categorization is a bit confused.

By 'The nonreligious' I think the real term is Apatheistic. Simply not religious and not interested enough even to call themselves a something. Many young people fall into this category.

By 'Emotional atheists' it is meant to refer to people browned off by religion for various reasons, but that , “to be angry at something means, at some level, [you] have a concept of its existence'. Nonsense. You can be angry at what religions do and the dangerous ideas of religion, without some lingering sense of its existence.

By 'Social atheists' I think this refers to what I call New Age pseudo religionists. I don't consider these people atheists at all really. They are residue religious people, sometimes calling themselves agnostic.

Now 'Antitheists' is the one category I think the article gets right. That's me. No doubt where we stand.

The rest of it, about atheists really sort of believing in some kind of supernatural ideas, well that's an old trope that should be dismissed. If people really are atheists, and call themselves that, then they are beyond all that nonsense, in my view.

Basically what the article categorizes atheists in some cases, I wouldn't.