Just my opinion, but should there not be a classification in the scale called "Non-theist"? Anti-theist is strong wording, sort of aggressive. If it is there. sorry, I missed it.

It's somewhere between agnostic and atheist.

Words, eh?!?

Words are important and, in fact, they change our world view. Removing religious leaning words and applying negative toward negative (IE, child free versus childless and godfree versus godless) things and positive toward is paramount to making headway. There is an international movement called the Brights that will fit here. A Bright is one who subscribes to a natural world view and a Super is one who subscribes to a supernatural world view. It is an online group.

Another one of those terms that has a broad meaning depending on who you talk to. While it would probably fit me generally, I'm not a fan of using the label. Too many people think of it as an extreme militant atheist who want to completely rid the world of any form of religion. While I would prefer there be no religion, I don't advocate to go out and try to force it out. My fight against religion is more related to opposition when it is being pushed onto others in a public manner. I don't much care about what another person believes in a general since, but when you try to use religion to inform public policy I have an issue with it.

What about Igtheists or Ignostics? LOL

Ignosticism, or igtheism is a theological position. If followed to its logical end it concludes that the entire question about God's existence is a non-question and that taking a yes, no or even ambivalent position is absurd. It can be summarized as "We have no clear concept of anything labeled 'God' and/or how to test it, nor do we have any reason to suspect that anyone does either." Ignosticism is based on a broader ontological/epistemological view that expects all questions and theories to be of clear and sound arguments. The arguments ought to have well defined terms and the possibility of critical and rational analysis. Ignosticism is responding to God claims (and possibly all supernatural claims) through this particular approach to knowledge. The answer is invariably that they are non-questions not worth taking seriously.