Or neutral? Or does it matter?
This article in the Guardian about the attitudes of different “types” of atheists articulates quite well the delineation between different approaches to non-belief.
The “old” atheists were bleak nihilists who lived in a purposeless universe. The “brights” movement tends to be counter this by celebrating the potential of the unencumbered human mind. In the former, moral clarity is unattainable. In the latter, harsh realities of life on a cruel planet are glossed over.
If it is important to you that your world-view be consistent with reality then neither of these modes of thinking can be entirely satisfying. In response to nihilism, there are certain things that are right and certain things that are wrong. It may not be as clear cut as religion says it is but it is true nonetheless. In response to the brights, better days are indeed ahead of us, but we owe it to a world full of suffering to not pretend that grave injustices exist and it’s not going to just be okay when the world is rid of irrational thought.
It may be the case that there is above us only sky, and no hell below us. But there is often hell on earth. Let’s acknowledge this externality and strive to develop a better understanding of the world around us, be it a positive view or a negative one.
I think what we will find is plenty of both.