What is problematic about this particular kind of atheism? First of all, if this is indeed the case, and the claim “I do not believe in GOD” reflects only the personal tendencies of the speaker, it should not affect those who believe in GOD. Such atheists have no way of showing that whoever disagrees with them is wrong or stupid, or commits some rational error. It is their right to hold his position personally, but they have no basis for attacking believers, accusing them of stupidity, hallucinations, and so on.
If someone is convinced by the ontological evidence, or by the evidence of planning, and there is no overwhelming rebuttal to this evidence, on what basis can the atheist argue? About the fact that his mental structure, or his assumptions, are different from those of others?
As long as the scholars have no convincing evidence in favor of atheism, or that believers make some mistake, the atheist crusade against GOD expresses nothing more than an attempt to portray anyone's mistake, the atheist crusade against GOD expresses nothing more than an attempt to portray anyone who thinks differently from atheists as foolish and crazy.
But more than that: even if atheists are peace-loving people, sitting at home and not conducting crusades of any kind, they still have no rationale or strong justification for adopting atheism. I will explain this by comparing it to the neighboring position of atheism, which is agnosticism.