>

I think that it all revolves into a definition problem. 
Just to be sure, could you define the terms you're using ? 
Personally, those are mine: 

Theist: I believe in God(s)
Atheist: I do not believe in God(s)
Anti-theist: I believe there is no God(s)

Then there is the "knowledge" axis: 

Gnostic: I got evidence about my belief
Agnostic: I got no - evidence for my belief

Also, you need to define if you are a giving a general sentence (i.e. I'm anti-theist for all Gods definitions), or just about the specific Christian definition (i.e. I don't believe that a celestial immortal magician created the world in 7 days and hate human masturbation). 
Because if you think that anti-theism make more sense whatever the definition of God (and not only the Christian one), there are plenty of cases where atheism make more sense:
Why couldn't we live in a simulation created by a higher specie (for example, imagine we're currently some really intelligent NPC in a "the sims" game for more advanced society) ? In that case, there are Gods: the guys who developed the simulation. They just don't interact with humans because that would skew the simulation. Such a situation is not totally improbable, as the only intelligent specie we know (us) currently create simulations that are getting smarter and more impressive with years. So being an agnostic atheist (in the sense that we don't believe because we have no proof in both direction) seems to be the most sensible choice when we talk about all the possible definitions of gods.
I think that it all revolves into a definition problem. 
Just to be sure, could you define the terms you're using ? 
Personally, those are mine: 

Theist: I believe in God(s)
Atheist: I do not believe in God(s)
Anti-theist: I believe there is no God(s)

Then there is the "knowledge" axis: 

Gnostic: I got evidence about my belief
Agnostic: I got no - evidence for my belief

Also, you need to define if you are a giving a general sentence (i.e. I'm anti-theist for all Gods definitions), or just about the specific Christian definition (i.e. I don't believe that a celestial immortal magician created the world in 7 days and hate human masturbation). 
Because if you think that anti-theism make more sense whatever the definition of God (and not only the Christian one), there are plenty of cases where atheism make more sense:
Why couldn't we live in a simulation created by a higher specie (for example, imagine we're currently some really intelligent NPC in a "the sims" game for more advanced society) ? In that case, there are Gods: the guys who developed the simulation. They just don't interact with humans because that would skew the simulation. Such a situation is not totally improbable, as the only intelligent specie we know (us) currently create simulations that are getting smarter and more impressive with years. So being an agnostic atheist (in the sense that we don't believe because we have no proof in both direction) seems to be the most sensible choice when we talk about all the possible definitions of gods. >

You’re anti-theist definition is wrong. It’s the position that theism is should be opposed. 
That’s the case he’s making and the case is strong. >

This is why he wanted to define them. The commenter presented the "logical and epistemological" definitions of the words, not the colloquial uses of the words. >

Your reasoning is based on several assumptions and generalizations that are not necessarily true.
1) You assume that there is no good reason to believe in God and that all arguments for God's existence are flawed. However, this is subjective and is not true for everyone. Some people may have had experiences or evidence that lead them to believe in God, and to dismiss these experiences without considering them is unfair.
2) You assume theism is inherently harmful. This is not necessarily the case, as many people have found comfort, solace, and happiness through their faith and belief in God. Additionally, religion and theism can be used to promote positive values such as love, compassion, and kindness.
3) You assume anti-theism is the only logical position and that it will lead to a better world. This is not necessarily true, as there are other belief systems and philosophies that do not require the rejection of God and yet still promote values such as equality, love, and compassion. >

1) I don't assume it. It's based on my understanding of the arguments for God. If there are better reasons then present them.
2) I mentioned this in my post.
3) I mentioned this in my most. I know there is liberal theism. >

Then you have poked holes in your own argument. It’s like saying “I think guns kill people the best. I also understand that bombs and nuclear weapons kill just as well if not better.” >

I need more explanation. >

So it looks like you're doing two different things here.
You're comparing atheism (not believing a god exists) with anti-theism (thinking theism is bad). Am I right about your definitions?
Because those are two different kinds of claim, one is an assessment of truth and the other is an assessment of the value of holding a position.
I'm not sure how one could make more sense than the other. >

That you shouldn't merely be atheist, but anti-theist too. >

So what do you think both of those words mean? >

What do you define as the difference between an anti-theist vs. an atheist? What do you define as atheism?
Is atheism simply disbelief in all religions today? Or is it rejection of any and all religious, mythical, spiritual beliefs?
Does anti-theism require suppression of religion in any way whatsoever? Would you ban organized religion beyond anything but theological purposes, i.e. religious teachings? >

Atheism could be a lack of belief in God, or belief there is no God.
Anti-theism would be a belief that the world would be better off without belief in God, and that's a good aim to push for, if only gently. >

It's entirely possible for someone to wish they could believe in god, but they don't. Anti-theism makes no sense for them, right? >

I'm not sure why.
I used to be in that category, and I'd say that anti-theism was good for me. >

How so?