The "A" in Atheist stands for "not" as in "not theist." So, we are not the anti-Christ, we just do not believe in him, even to the extent where we can acknowledge the great possibility that he may have never existed. Being neutral grants a person great versatility in what they're allowed to consider, and doesn't that sound like a good definition of being open-minded?

Being neutral is a good place to be. After all, society seeks a neutral party to arbitrate between opposing sides, like labor unions and management. Isn't it a fact that when you go to court, the jury itself is supposed to be neutral in order to make unbiased determinations?

So, why then are Atheists looked down upon, and viewed as opponents? Because first, of the fallacy in thinking that if you're not for something, therefore you must be against it. With limited logic like that, neutrality is not an option. Secondly, in religion you're supposed to take what you're told on faith and nothing else. However, faith alone is not much to go on, because the individual has to convince him- or herself that the fantastic stories and hard-to-grasp aspects of their doctrine are indeed true. So, a sophisticated process of indoctrination has to be adopted in order to realize that goal. Moreover, once the person is in, a system of maintenance has to be employed. But, no matter, any view that isn't consistent with the doctrine has to be viewed as hostile, whether it was intended to be that way or not. That must be so, in order to maintain confidence in the belief. Especially with Christianity, where demonization of alternative explanations, considerations or ideas is inherent in the ideology, and so is practiced that way. Which is why Atheists such as myself are always accused of being angry or "trying to convert" somebody, after we express our opinions. Unlike any other topic, simply expressing a criticism about religion is not considered as another way of looking at it, but as opposing it.

Believers are usually indoctrinated from early childhood. If a person resist, then society on large has it's mechanisms of pursuing and pressuring that individual to conform. People very rarely have an opportunity to view religion from a neutral standpoint. I think that's also because society falsely believes that religion is a necessity. In his book, Propaganda - The Formation of Men's Attitudes, by Jacques Ellul, he says:

"… necessity never establishes legitimacy; the world of necessity is a world of weakness, a world that denies man. To say that a phenomenon is necessary means… that it denies man: necessity is proof of its power, not proof of its excellence. However, confronted by a necessity, man must become aware of it, if he is to master it. As long as man denies the inevitability of a phenomenon, as long as he avoids facing up to it, he will go astray. He will delude himself, by submitting in fact to 'necessity' while pretending that he is free 'in spite of it,' and simply because he claims to be free. Only when he realizes his delusion will he experience the beginning of freedom - in the act of realization itself - be it only from the effort to stand back and look squarely at the phenomenon and reduce it to raw fact."

It is the general consensus among believers that if a neutral party should read the Bible, then that person would be so enamored by it, he or she would want to become a Believer. Not so; to be completely neutral while examining religion, one has the unique ability to see its shortcomings. Therefore, to offer a different perspective, not necessarily being a conforming or a praising one, is not an attack against it, but an enlightenment of it.