Atheist comedian Patton Oswalt compares militant atheists like Richard Dawkins and Bill Maher to Fred Phelps of Westboro Baptist Church, and not favorably.

/atheism has incredible power within the Reddit community

I think you're overestimating the power of /r/atheism. It's not even a default sub. And again, I think perhaps it's your misperception about the message that concerns you, rather than the message itself.

expect most scientists to use clinical terms with judiciousness and rigor.

Metaphors do not belong solely to comics and entertainers. They belong to anyone who aims to communicate effectively, including scientists. (Science employs metaphors all the time.) The question is whether mental illness is an apt metaphor for religion. Given how religion systematically causes people to accept dangerous and patently absurd untruths as truths, even in the face of overwhelming evidence, I would say yes. Where else, except in mental illness, do we see anything like this?

By the way, as for your point that mental health professionals don't view religion as mental illness, we need to remember a few things: A) the field is in its infancy. It wasn't long ago when we were drilling holes in people's heads. B) If humanity is suffering from large-scale delusion, then we should expect that such a delusion would impact the judgment of those charged with studying human psychology. In other words, we may be in a position where the mental patients are tasked with diagnosing themselves. Is it any wonder when they give themselves a clean bill of health? C) We define mental illness based on normalcy / abnormality, which has some serious and glaring limitations. D) We still have a long, long, long way to go in effectively understanding and treating mental illness.

Calling me an apologist frames me incorrectly and frankly is designed to lessen me

I didn't call you an apologist. Nor was my point designed to lessen you. I was simply making an observation that your arguments, almost without exception, are ones we hear regularly from believers. I always find it curious when atheists seem to be echoing religious talking points. You say you aren't drinking the koolaid, so I will take you at your word.

That net effect claim is an extraordinary one and needs extraordinary evidence.

Extraordinary in your view perhaps. What's extraordinary to me is how someone can think mass delusion can be ultimately beneficial.

What they haven't shown, again, is that a world without religion is better. Why it may seem intuitively correct to an atheist that it would be, that isn't evidence.

I would suggest there is extraordinary evidence, and that perhaps you haven't looked hard enough. For example, contrary to the nonsense about Stalin and Pol Pot, we know that less religious societies tend to be happier. If you mean conclusive scientific "proof," surely you are aware of how difficult, if not impossible, that is. Scientists can't even say for certain what foods are good for us. Furthermore, nobody has demonstrated that religion has a net benefit. Yet that doesn't stop millions from trying to spread their faith and infect -- I mean convert -- others. For every Richard Dawkins, there are how many thousands of religious leaders, authors, missionaries, etc.? But you don't find that irresponsible, do you? No, you're too busy criticizing one of the lone dissenting voices in an extremely lopsided conversation. Even if Dawkins is wrong, you should recognize that he is contributing to the dialogue simply by presenting an alternative perspective that historically never even gets a seat at the table.

to show that without religion something else simply steps in

But that's not what you demonstrated. Not even close. None of those scenarios involved a grass-roots cultural revolution based on dialogue and debate, where religion was organically uprooted. They involved a despotic overthrow of religion, which is something none of us are advocating. Do some research on the least religious societies in the world. If something steps in when religion is gone, it appears to be happiness. (Well, really... Societal happiness and irreligion are only a correlation at this point. But it still debunks the myth you're perpetuating that the absence of religion inevitably leads to misery.)

So which do you fight? The concept? The materials? Should we have a big burn party?

How about the faulty epistemology? That's what most of us, including Dawkins et al, are attacking. Without the faulty epistemology as a foundation, religion crumbles.

Ultimately the actions are the deciding factor, not the reasons.

I'm afraid you're not really appreciating the far-reaching consequences of faulty epistemologies and the beliefs they foster. Moderates are still feeding into and supporting the breeding ground for extremists. If you want to start an orphanage, great. But you can do that without believing in nonsense, infecting others with that nonsense, and aiding those who use that nonsense to do great harm in the world.

people can be good or can be dicks

And what causes people to be good or to be dicks? This is not a rhetorical question. You will find, in the solution to this puzzle, the key to your erroneous view of religion. I will eagerly await your reply. Again: What is it that motivates human behavior, and causes one person to be "good" and another to be "a dick?"

it's important that some contrarian opinions be voiced so that the prevailing attitude.....

Interesting. Because as I see it, you're the guy trying to stifle a contrarian opinion. You're the guy defending Goliath, and defending a perspective that is held by 98% of the world. It's a bit strange to me that you would view that effort as nobly contrarian.

so that the prevailing attitude doesn't become all religions are evil therefore all people who follow religion are evil

So you're fighting against a dangerous prevailing attitude that you yourself admit does not yet exist, while ignoring the dangerous prevailing attitudes that do? Okay. That strikes me as a peculiar use of your mental energy.

In closing: Insofar as all religions perpetuate the myth that blind faith in absurd untruths is the source of human goodness, all religions are evil. And insofar as people participate in those religions, they are helping to perpetuate that evil. Pointing this out is not demonization. It is simply stating a fact so that the fact may be recognized. That way lies a saner world.

/r/atheism Thread Parent Link - salon.com