Well, you packed a lot of fallacies into that comment, together with a bizarre fascination with neckbeards.

The number of theists vs atheists isn't relevant if we're just taking for granted how folks report their beliefs. Lots of so-called religious people are effectively atheists because they're hypocrites or their religious commitments don't amount to much. Their religions have been so watered down that their spiritual depth is trivial, and they live as consumers and as if there were no God. So the polls are often superficial.

What's so obscure about atheism? Atheists say there's no invisible friend in the sky. No, the obscurity is on the religious side of the divide.

Even if atheists were generally angry, that wouldn't count against the truth of atheism, which means that that personal attack is especially irrelevant. After all, there could be much to be angry about, such as the continuation of religious anachronisms and childlike follies that embroil societies in absurd conflicts and prejudices. The truth might not be pleasant, so anger would be a natural reaction to knowledge of the ultimate facts.

You also appeal to popularity when you suggest that atheists are angry that atheism isn't more popular. Most people in the world are hypocritical and poorly educated, so why should we be so concerned with what's popular with the hoi palloi?

Again, you've spewed an assortment of fallacies here. Not sure whether you were going for a record, but the only prize I have to offer you is my lack of respect for your intellect.