you still don't show any understanding of the hard/soft or strong/weak distinctions in types of atheism. both tend to use the term "atheism" unadorned, but have very different logical requirements.
the statement "i do not believe in god" is, on its face, logically weak (an unfortunate term, but there it is): it makes no real claims, and is neutral as to the actual reality. this is what classical atheists believe. it is essentially the same as saying "i'm unconvinced".
the statement "there is no god" is logically strong: it makes a definitive claim as to the condition of reality. as such, it has the same requirements on evidence as the statement "there is a god (or gods)". this is the more common usage among modern self-professed "atheists". the logical requirements are not diminished based on the fact that you're asserting a negative.
asserting that the tyranny of atheist rulers is because of an underlying insanity but that the tyranny of theist rulers is because of theism is absurdly intellectually dishonest. why do you get to pick and choose?
even if you were to make that assertion and try to back it up, the disproportionate representation of psychopaths at the head of atheist regimes would leave open a rather interesting question of why that happens. that is, what is it about religion that serves as a check, albeit an imperfect one, on such craziness? that's not the best place to take your argument.
David Hume is absolutely correct, but that passage is totally irrelevant. that is, it applies exactly as well to strong atheist claims as it does to theist claims. you seem to want it to say something it doesn't.
i have no interest in defending the claims of any particular branch of Christianity. you seem, there, to be laboring under the mistaken belief that i give those claims some sort of "free pass" as far as logical constraints go. that's the main reason i'm no sort of proselytizer. turnabout is fair play, i guess, but in doing so you're totally punting on your logical responsibility. and it's a poor punt, given that at no point have i framed things in a "Christianity (of any derivation) vs. atheism" argument.
that cemented, for me, your position as the sort of anit-church zealot your "argument" about the role of religion on human nature has made you out to be. there's no point in arguing or debating with zealots of any stripe. for other readers: when presented with "you don't understand A", asserting "yeah, well you haven't proven B" is not a coherent defense. especially when nobody's made any claims about B.
you lump in "belief in the absence of evidence" with "belief in the face of contrary evidence". this, logically speaking, is an error. your apparent, persistent inability to understand this is likely related (in which direction i do not know) to your inability to differentiate between the claims of two different types of atheists.
and no, i will not do your work for you.