I don't..especially if one wants to engage the conversation by insinuating as much.
what are the "standards" we scientists use to determine whether something can be a theory? In particular, how do such standards differ from a claim that something is:
Theism...is a faith based claim. Faith doesn't require evidence. Neither one (faith or evidence) is a prerequisite for the believer. I actually don't expect believers to be able to show evidence for their claims....but this is a debate forum and when people bring their faith here there will be challenges to them and to it. Many, not all, theist start with the premise that "God" or gods exist and begin to give a litany of things their god(s) is responsible for. So when one starts with the ntion that gods exist and is responsible or the reason for X then that's their hypothesis. Unfortunately such claims never make it to the next phase of testing.
What are your arguments against the argument from cosmology, particle physics, and theoretical physics for a theistic cosmology as presented in e.g.,
Amoroso, R., & Rauscher, E. (2009). The Holographic Anthropic Multiverse: Formalizing the Complex Geometry of Reality (Series on Knots and Everything vol. 43). World Scientific.
it is used to justify neglectful relationships, the neglect of poverty, the justification of political injustice, and the complete disregard for the negative social effects it has in regards to morality.
It was already mentioned, but that's an interesting definition you have for 'religion'.
I am also struggling to remember when atheism was used as justification for anything much. I'm assuming you are making a judgement call on atheists rather than atheism itself.