Because your facts, evidence, and proof are a threat to their emotional declarations of faith. People who feel threatened defensively lash out, including ad hominem attacks against the speaker. If they can dismiss you as one of the eternally damned, then why should they have to listen to you in the first place?

People feel comfortable in their comfort zone.Science is a way of thinking based on evidence and observation, and that's the problem. Science doesn't make them feel " good".

Science crashes the delusions of wishful thinking.

Maybe.... because science is "hard" to understand, and, can provide "uncomfortable" truths.
Religion being faith based, simply requires you to "believe".

Faith functions in a much older part of the brain, whereas reason evolved relatively recently. Also... we have intuitive capacities from birth, but the formal operational stage of cognitive development (abstract thought) comes online only at age 11, and then only about a third of the adult population becomes proficient at it.

I disagree with your title. Because they are religious. Name calling indicates weakness. I don't believe in Hell. Personally I would rather talk to someone whose theories have been t tested or suchlike anyday.

People have hope in religion but are too stupid to understand science so they go with something easier, religion.

Faith, as a term, is often misused by people of faith. It has different definitions.
Faith–noun

1. Complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
2. Strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.

The first definition is about trust. I have faith (Complete Trust) my car will start when I get in it. I do not have this for no reason but because I know my vehicle and how I have maintained it. If it did not start my faith (Complete Trust) would be broken.

The second definition is about religion. It is often called “Blind Faith” because religious claims have never been proven, but people believe because they have been raised in the religion’s traditions or because they were convinced by argument of its truth. It is not complete trust in a thing because of the evidence supporting it.

The first definition everyone has, the second is reserved for people of a given faith or religion. The first is a claim of trust based upon evidence, the second is belief in a religion’s ideas without evidence. It is the second definition I have issues with because I am not convinced of the truth of any religion’s claims.

The fact that people constantly conflate these differing uses of the term faith causes great consternation and sometimes conflict in the world we all share.

It looks to me as if people of faith have created a new meaning for faith, a definition (3), which would be “a complete trust that my religious belief is correct because I have faith (2) in it”, and this is what they want to arise. They want everyone to have a blind faith, just like them, because that is so much easier.

If everyone believes in the same fashion then no thought about why they believe is ever needed. This is anti-liberty and stands against the ideal of religious liberty enshrined in the Constitution.

Faith (3) Is unsound because no person of faith has the evidence to show what they believe is real, because they believe it without evidence. They have faith instead, they believe the tale. It is unsound because it is bigoted against any and every other faith or lack of faith entire. Yet the people of faith who use such terms see this a good thing.

Hebrews 11:1 “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” This verse is a very common interpretation of what faith is by Christians. So let us take a look at this very poetic verse. Faith is the substance of things hoped for . . .

sub·stance–noun

1. A particular kind of matter with uniform properties.
2. The real physical matter of which a person or thing consists and which has a tangible, solid presence.

What does substance mean in this sentence, a type of matter? Faith has no matter, it is a either complete trust (which has no substance) or religious belief (which also has no substance). Is it the “real physical matter of which a person or thing consists”? Again Faith has no real physical substance.

Yet this poetic line is falsely equating faith as the substance (real actual physical evidence) of hope, another intangible emotion. Religion is said to give people hope, of an afterlife, of salvation from an inevitable eternal torture. and so forth. This sentence is telling people their own faith is evidence of their religious hopes, of an afterlife or salvation.

It is re-defining the term faith. A definition (3) “a complete trust (because their faith is evidence) that my religious belief is correct because I have faith (2) in it”.

That is utter circular reasoning.

“I have complete trust because my complete trust is evidence of my complete trust”.

It is literally saying “I have complete trust (in my religious ideas) because my belief (in those religious ideas) is evidence (of those very religious ideas).”

Yet that is not enough for the poet of Hebrews 11, they also claim “the evidence of things not seen” in the very same line! Let us examine this line, “the evidence of things not seen”.

EVIDENCE

1. something which shows that something else exists or is true
   : a visible sign of something
   : material that is presented to a court of law to help find the truth about something

Faith is evidence (Hard, tangible,visible) of things not seen, which is a blatant falsehood.

Faith in a thing is not a tangible evidence of that thing. Faith cannot be evidence of things not seen, by definition. This line of poetry is attempting to define the religious faith into hard physical, visible. existence.

“Now faith (an intangible belief or trust) is the substance (hard material proof) of things hoped for (but not proven to exist), the evidence (visible proof) of things not seen”.

IN this fashion it is the Bible itself which is redefining faith to fit its ends. It has created faith (3) “a complete trust that my religious belief is correct because I have faith (2) in it”, which is utterly circular and dead wrong by definition.

Faith can never do this, it is simply not hard visible evidence that what a person of faith believes is true. If it were then EVERY religion would be correct simply because someone believed it, their belief in it would make it true by re-defining faith as evidence.

Faith is not evidence, it is belief without evidence.

It is so much harder to manipulate the masses with science!

Because they were raised to believe there is only THE god, and not believing in him gets you an eternity in hell.

Ancient authoritarian propaganda tool. Those who learned to accept what they were told without questioning the voice of authority were/are easier to govern and/or control.

Facts and truths have changed a lot, in definition, over the years. Many people say fact when they mean truth and visa versa. This type of confusion leads to facts being supplanted by truths. Religion has always disliked being displaced by anything, most of all, science. The truly religious have no choice but to reject science, because science 'truths' are simply opinions that change with time, so should be ignored. I always ask them if they would rather walk, ride a horse or bicycle, or drive a car.

You can't reason with unreasonable people. Faith is just believing in stuff which there's no proof for. What kids do. And hell doesn't exist any more than heaven does, so don't waste your time worrying about their empty threats.