Well stated. Thank you!

Completely agree with you.

In general, both sides of this debate claim that the critiques of the other side are based on stereotypes rather than a nuanced understanding of what's being criticized.

There is actually some truth to that. But not nearly so much as they'd have us believe.

My main critique of religion's core is that it's a failed epistemology -- the acceptance of assertions about reality based on authority and without a requirement of substantiation of any kind. "[Relgious] faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen". This seems a very unambiguous statement of what religious faith is. To their credit, some theists absolutely embrace this; a few try to weasel out of it; but it's pretty unambiguous and inescapable. Religion decides, based on a holy book or dogma or tradition or the pronouncements of religious authority figures, what is true, and then accepts only information that appears to support that presuppositionalist notion. Atheism is the rejection of that, generally in favor of something more like the scientific method -- the examination of evidence leading to a conclusion (if one is possible).

When it comes to god, atheists see no evidence to support the conclusions of religion, and so do not afford belief to it.

Not believing in the truth claims of religion implies some things ... that the religious are mistaken in some way, and this leads to pointing out various logical and ethical inconsistencies in their beliefs. This conflicts with the carefully cultivated self-image of most religions persons as uniformly good, decent, well-meaning, rational, kind, generous people; it introduces a fly in the ointment. But it needn't. Many religious people actually ARE consistently good, decent, well-meaning, at least mostly rational, kind, generous people; it just doesn't come from where they have been conditioned to think that it does. But the tendency is to identify one's beliefs with one's selfhood, and so to question the beliefs is to personally affront or even assault the believer -- it becomes an existential threat.

What simple disagreement, much less active disagreement, looks like to a believer, is the wheels coming off their very identity. Whereas what it looks like to unbelievers most often is just disagreement.

I leave it to the reader to decide who is laboring under stereotypes more. As an atheist, I can affirm that religious people mean well and try their best to do well.

As a theist, I tended to assume that atheists don't mean well, have ulterior motives, and intend me grave personal harm.

Which is a stereotype?

Sure ... some theists (generally, liberals) don't assume anything about atheists, and actually are curious what actual atheists actually think, and why.

Sure, some atheists assume too much about theists, and don't consult them about their actual beliefs and motivations.

But for the most part in my experience unbelievers are far more generous and forbearing with believers, than the inverse.

And also in my experience, when a believer cries foul -- decries an atheist as "hateful" toward god or to his representatives for example -- I go through that atheist's remarks and look in vain for hatred or even too many assumptions. All I see is a failure to utterly defer to and automatically buy into the theist's dogma; a request for them to evidence their assertions; or pointing out logical inconsistencies or lack of evidential support that need to be addressed. That is literally ALL I see, MOST of the time.

So forgive me if I regard most of these complaints from theists as whining.