I don't so much disagree with any particular point you make but rather the scope of your argument.

Take the first paragraph, substitute "Christian" (or "Theist" to be even more general) for "Atheist" and you are still making a reasonable argument.

There are people who, because they hold a particular belief, think they are so much more morally superior than those who hold a different belief. These belief may be political (Left or Right) or supernatural ( gods, demons, leprecans, "greys", or what-have-you), but a certain amount of them all will hold the holier-than-thou atitude and feel it is not only their right, but their duty to castigate and belittle all the "others."

However, atheism is not a beleif system; it is not really an "ism." As the name implies, it is simply "not theism." Beyond their disbelief in supernatural beings, there may be no other point of agreement between one atheist and another. Each atheist must also have a separate "ism" or philosophy by which they define their life. Mine is Objectivism. Yours, going by just this one article, seems to be Humanism. Whatever.

It is not the Atheism that make an Atheist charge "religion is a disease" or Theism that makes a Christian charge "Atheists are devil worshipers." This is a personal flaw that manifests in the need to inflict cruelty upon others--these attacks being the only legal ways left in which to be cruel. If the insulent Atheist converts, we find him a just as insolent as a Theist. And vice versa.

But I had to smile in agreement with what you said about Tyson. Like many brilliant scientists, he sometimes forgets that science is the process, not the result.