I think anti-theism more commonly refers to stand intellectual and socially against theism, for the threat to humanity's health it is and is associated with. The is no real distinction of atheist as your refer, such as 'non-belief' vs 'disbelief'. Non-belief seems to only a 'less commital, less mature, 'intermediate' place to land intellectually until one realizes there is no need, no good purpose for 'non-belief'. Disbelief is actually the appropriate/correct conclusion given all considerations (so far, but no reason to expect that to change, but open of course to actual new evidence).

I'm not trying to comment on what is right or appropriate under the circumstances, merely observe that even without an active disbelief in deities one can (and, to my mind, should) be considered an atheist.

Additionally, while I do agree that your definition is what is more commonly linked to "antitheist," I only said that one could be qualified as such. Perhaps you disagree, but, as you observed, there is no common term to distinguish active disbelief with a lack of belief. Looking for something, I used a term that, etymologically, at least, should function. It seems as though I may have been misguided in that attempt. Fair enough.

I will, however, disagree with your assessment of non-belief being "less committal, less mature" and an "intermediate place to land intellectually." I have exactly zero belief in a deity, but I possess no active commitment to a belief in the non-existence of deities. This is due to the simple adage that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, i.e., while I concur there is no reason to believe in such a thing, there is also no evidence by which we can conclude anything to the contrary, and as such will not commit prematurely to a conclusion without proof.

I, like you, do not expect the evidence to change, but I must admit that this is insufficient to actively claim anything resembling certainty. Committal to a belief without evidence is dogmatic (or, at the very least, misguided and premature), and I stand against dogma in all its forms, regardless of its claims.