The "angry at god atheist" sterotype can sometimes include a part of truth but is actually a straw man, a false justification, like the lie "atheism is the justification of sin". The anger could only result while still a believer, or still agnostic, or not having moved on yet, when still in a crisis of faith. It is something else to recognize that if a deity existed, it would not be moral or worthy of worship anyway, a conclusion that can be achieved with reason that's not clouded by emotions. I used to be a believer and today, any anger is aimed at stupidity and human manipulation, there is no imaginary being to scapegoat. I don't even resort anymore to prayers of the style: "please help me and show me evidence of your existence, please lead me to the truth", even though I sometimes did in the past. It's not even a reflex to pray when I panic about something anymore.
The next paragraph is libel, bearing false witness, claiming that someone who simply arrives at the logical, intellectually honest conclusion that a particular deity is unlikely to exist, would somehow be at war against it. How could they if they're simply detached from it, understanding that it's an idea and the origin and purpose of such imagination? The vultures picking up the unprepared is war mongering nonsense and dehumanization. I don't care that you attend church and don't go there. Replying to the promotion of nonsense and disclosing its fallacies is not preying.
It then follows by a type of affirmative creed, as if atheists needed to constantly repeat a special anti-god prayer everyday. Evidence that a straw man of atheists and hate speech is promoted, because again, you don't need that to not believe. Instead, it's simple: evidence is needed to believe.
More libel is promoted, claiming that atheists are anarchists. Which really exposes the intent of the poster, to impose what they consider "law" on everyone. And to deny that atheists may be ethical beings who also understand that society needs law codes. This is also the denial that in many modern societies the law is already secular.
The last paragraph exposes the intent, manipulative segregation to exploit, dividing the victims by making them reject "them", dehumanizing others. This is malice and harmful and this constatation is not libel, as well as supported by evidence in the text. Lastly, this is not only about atheists, but the straw man called "atheists" that is presented and scapegoated.
"ProperJob" asked: Is the idea of others having a different viewpoint to yourself so damn frightening?
This post indeed aims to make it very frightening. It looks like intent to me.