The religious recognize that 1) evil is real, 2) it doesn't sleep
There are various definitions of evil because it is subjective. For simplicity, let's assume that this is not just "moral rightness" but includes suffering. Theodicy are arguments to justify the existence of the divine despite the existence of suffering, with a tradition of apologetics to attempt to justify the lack of divine intervention to prevent it.
3) it hates humanity and wants humanity degraded, controlled and dead.
This is more a type of conspiracy theory of sorts. Or an argument to define the concept of ultimate evil. In Christianity, its personification would be Satan, apparently wanting to mislead all humans, but even then, one may point out that God will destroy the unfaithful and/or make them suffer for eternity (we could argue that this is very evil), so this is already conflictual.
One thing is certain one day everyone is going to learn that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father. No escape from that eventual reality. [...] Let that sink in.
The analysis of this is interesting. When read by a third party like me, it is obvious that the author is practicing self-reinforcement, trying to convince themself. And by extension, trying to convince others. The "let that sink in" is like "let this be clear", "one thing is certain", "amen", "indubitably", etc. Trying to cast it in reality, an assertion of wishthinking, something that's not necessary when there is less subjective material to work with and describe. A biology textbook for instance, does not use those common propaganda formulations and it would actually be ridiculous to present science in sermon-style, just like preachers don't ring our door to "teach us the Good Word of Science".
the atheists worship their intellect. watch how angry they get when their intellect gets belittled.
The first part is the common human vanity apologetic argument. It makes no sense if we don't a priori accept some higher form of authority. Since the authority here is old human tradition, modern cherry picking, reinterpretation, the claim of divine authority remains questionable. Thus, there is no problem for some humans to be more or less informed, knowledgeable, rightful, etc. There are many other problems with the claim, considering the existence of older human traditions and deities, of concurrent traditions and deities, the lack of evidence for any of them other than the traditions around them, etc. I don't have to be angry to expose these simple facts. I'm ignoring the apparently irrelevant political statement at the end.
Believing there is no God requires more faith than believing there is.
The simple definition of faith already defeats this. An aspect that may be true is that it requires more effort to explain the world than to attribute it to magic. Someone can also naively believe that the sun is divine, but learning what the sun actually is requires studying. It doesn't mean that people who study science do it because they want to reject faith. Minds can be inquisitive.
There is no such thing as an "absence of belief" because without belief in "something else," as you put it, you would simply cease to exist. Humans are by dint of what we might call sentience (an awareness of our own existence and the interactions that we, as individuals, have with the outer world, by whatever physical or metaphysical definitions you "believe" in) creatures that depend on belief.
This almost sounds like idealism and claims that the mind casts the world into existence, like magic thinking. But humans do seek meaning. Beliefs and religiosity result from minds that can produce those ideas, but ideas don't need to have a basis in reality and creating them does not cast them in reality. Then there's consciousness that's indeed quite mysterious still for neurology, although advances are constantly being made.
As for metaphysics, they remain part of apologetic philosophical arguments. However, when science is concerned, it deals with what it can work with and includes processes to self-correct, test hypotheses, etc. Some ideas are better than other ideas to assess reality, because they include processes designed to test ideas against reality. You can still deny it all but it's only your loss and does not invalidate what has been discovered about reality and nature, including evolution.
You might not believe in things that you cannot rationalize, observe, or measure, preferring to reject religious approaches to understanding things that science does not currently or cannot explain, but to rely purely upon the rational, observable, and measurable is no less a belief in something than a religious person believes in a spiritual component to existence.
True for rational minds and processes like the scientific method, where it's important to get somewhere, to be practical. Of course, it doesn't mean that an electrical engineer cannot also be religious. If they are also atheist, then they simply don't find it useful to speculate or care much about what lacks enough evidence to take in consideration.
Too many atheists take the simplistic inference that a rejection of the supernatural, divine, or religion absolves them of notions such as belief or faith, but the human experience is dependent upon both belief and faith, as without them we cannot have any meaningful interactions with the outside world or relationships with other beings within that world.
Everyone have beliefs to some level or another, especially if we consider every human idea to rely on some inference. Then again, some beliefs have no basis in reality, others have a lot of evidence to support them. They are not equal. Since the basics of nature don't constantly change and that the natural sciences attempt to understand it, although new scientific theories may eventually be more complete, they rarely completely discredit old ones. I don't mean hypothesis here, or a guess, but an explanatory model in science, that also makes practical predictions because they work. This means that in science "beliefs" are the most informed ones. The age of the Earth for instance, is an inference and an estimate, but it is very unlikely that it'll suddenly change by a billion years. Or that what are understood to be constants in physics, suddenly become jello or useless. The various sciences also tend to converge and complete eachother (consilience), they are not religious splits.
