If I'm ever asked a similar question as this in the future, I hope to reply with something along the lines of Robert Ingersoll's response below.
Interviewer: The great objection to your teaching urged by your enemies is that you constantly tear down, and never build up.
Ingersoll: ....A destroyer of weeds, thistles and thorns is a benefactor, whether he soweth grain or not. I cannot for my life see why one should be charged with tearing down and not rebuilding simply because he exposes a sham, or detects a lie. I do not feel under any obligation to build something in the place of a detected falsehood. All I think I am under obligation to put in the place of a detected lie is the detection. Most religionists talk as if mistakes were valuable things and they did not wish to part with them without a consideration. Just how much they regard lies worth a dozen I do not know. If the price is reasonable I am perfectly willing to give it, rather than to see them live and give their lives to the defense of delusions.
I am firmly convinced that to be happy here will not in the least detract from our happiness in another world should we be so fortunate as to reach another world ; and I cannot see the value of any philosophy that reaches beyond the intelligent happiness of the present. There may be a God who will make us happy in another world. If he does, it will be more than he has accomplished in this. I suppose that he will never have more than infinite power and never have less than infinite wisdom, and why people should expect that he should do better in another world than he has in this is something that I have never been able to explain. A being who has the power to prevent it and yet who allows thousands and millions of his children to starve; who devours them with earthquakes; who allows whole nations to be enslaved, cannot in my judgment be implicitly depended upon to do justice in another world.