OK Space Cadet, I am a post-theistic theologian and you can learn to respect it or stuff it into the empty cabin of definitions you use to ignore the cogency of my criticism of your 'enthusiastic' dogma about atheism.
"Evangelical" is how I describe Hitchins, who was very enthusiastic to the point of rhetorical overload on the subject. I am also aware of Dawkins, Harris and others who have attempted to make some point or other about "god" while they have varing opinions on religion. It is the latter that I separate from the issue of "atheism" which is about believing in a "god" and for the most part is about an ontic being existing somewhere, which I reject as at least, passe.
If you wish to keep "evangelical" for specifically religious advocacy, you could at least allow that its use as a descriptor of enthusiastic and dogmatic atheism is not that much of a violation and does nothing to change the facts of the description.
The question I keep asking atheists is what difference does it make that there is "no god" to them. What difference would it make if god existed? How "god" exists is not a trivial question to ask. Metaphor and Myth are able to communicate truths, but they don't become science and history to be "true."
I hardly change any definition when I refer to secularism as "religion" rather than fact because the word itself is part of a pair describing a whole called reality. Sacred is the other half of secular, and to remove it in disgust for the archaic nature of theism is to leave the whole realm of human value and "soul" out to dry in the arid and shallow ground of something like "economic man(sic)" or our imperial fantasies of power and glory.
Mind you, I have no desire to convert atheists to theism whatsoever. Atheism is not a flawed place to start, it is just a silly place to stop. It is not a critique of religion, but it is of theistic religion and there is a lot of that to cut through out there for sure. I ask this same question of those who claim they do believe in God, because it is also a silly place to stop and probably a harder place to get a start into the big question of what it takes to make and keep human life human in this world.
That is the game field everybody needs to move to and get away from this stupid and silly confrontation about the existence of God. If they have to defend God, they don't believe in the All Powerful and All Knowing Master of the Universe and Creator. The irony is wonderful. The Divine Metaphor can defend herself without our dogmatic cover. The Myth will either reveal lifetruth or cover it up depending upon what we bring to it. The Story exists in human history and has meaning because it is part of our legacy of wisdom and not just the superstitions of the past swept away by our hip modern consciousness about reality. Some are. Some are things we need to recover for our own good.
If you would like to have a serious conversation about the nature of faith, and I mean intellectual and moral integrity, and not whether myths are history, etc., we could begin by appreciating that "BELIEF" is about "BELONGING" rather than about intellectual content. The Baptized agree to accept a common story as "theirs" and to identify with each other as "Christians," but it would be hard to get three in any congregation who could explain the words of the creeds they repeat as confessions of faith, etc. in worship. The three includes the pastor.
In a healthy faith community, Doubt is honored with Belief in a dialectic leading to Imagination and "Who do You say that I am?" rather than what do others tell you to believe. That, in turn, should lead to Mutuality from the stage of Self Development to Interdependence. It is here that each personal journey of faith joins in pluralism around being human together. What is "believed" throughout, is the mystery of Love and Grace, which I find truer that true to human life.
I will not repeat the realism point other than to repeat that it is not the definition, logical positivism certainty of objectivity--another rap on the secularism reductionism.
Be a "realist" by all means, but remember that it is a term for an explorer and discoverer and not for how definitive our ideas are in the real world. Don't accept any Truth other than the True Ones, and the same with Love. Life is full of those who have worshipped at the wrong altar or bed.
Religion does not go away because you abolish it. Religious institutions identify themselves, so we think of them in those terms. Wall St. is supposedly secular, but I think Mammon and Mars are working overtime in our secular world and we are in their thrall when we don't expose them as "false gods."
You don't have to adopt the "gods" part, but the false matters, and establishing the ground of the moral authority of Justice is part of the politics of achieving justice in the real world. When did "we" adopt our "exceptionalism" and become demonic about our use of violence? I think it helps to appreciate the dynamics of religion operating where "liberals" have desired a world of reason. Get over it. Being able to use reason is good, but we are not creatures of reason so get over the frustration and deal with it.