Anti-religious would be more accurate. There have been atheists who consider religion necessary as the masses can't be trusted by themselves.
I also dislike the term 'militant atheist' since that's like saying 'militant gays' or something.
Basically: homosexual is to gay activist as atheist is to militant atheist.
Consider a person who thinks homosexuality isn't right despite agreeing with a gay activist on all other fronts. Now this is a victory from a rights-based objective, but that concession legitimizes homophobia and is a (small) threat.
Drop some of the moral connotations, and an atheist faces a similar dilemma with a liberal religious person. Their faith, despite agreeing with the atheist on everything else, legitimizes illogical thought in a small way.
Well, I used evangelical atheist because I think it's a more accurate term, and also it doesn't conjure a picture of Richard Dawkins wrapped in a bandoleer of ammunition. But yeah, most atheist and agnostic people I interact with are perfectly civil and don't bother me about it, but there's a sizable minority that is really really bothered that I believe something they don't and feel the need to convert me, either through discussion or through berating me.
Eh- erm... But you're... Religions, by their nature, claim knowledge of the divine.
I mean, I... I'm not sure that's an accurate term.
My religion doesn't purport to have knowledge of the divine. And I'm distrustful of anyone who does. Though that also depends on what you mean by knowledge.
Knowledge is defined in philosophy as true justified belief. It's a belief, and it may or may not be true, as for justified, I guess that depends on what you think justifies a belief.
Edit: And as I said earlier, many people believe that knowledge precludes faith.
