I feel like realizing the harm religion does can lead to contempt for believers. I'm acutely aware of the harm people do in the name of religion, but I find it hard to swallow that religion is harmful in itself. Who's to say that religion is not simply used as an excuse by many people to do evil?
And you can't see how that's a no true scotsman, a cop-out meant to place religion on a pedestal from which it can do no wrong?
You could say "I can see the harm people do in the name of racism, but I find it hard to swallow that racism is harmful in itself.
Though admittedly, I should've been more specific. Religion in itself isn't necessarily harmful (societally at least - on an individual level, it still amounts to philosophical suicide), but religions with violent dogma/blood-soaked scriptures (mostly abrahamic religions), very much are.
When a society oppresses women because it's written in the holy book, it's really disingenuous to say it's not religion causing harm, that it's just an excuse.
If you need an example:
Do you think it's somehow inherent to middle-eastern people to be incredibly misogynistic? That it's in their genetic code?
No! It's in the dogma of the proeminent religion of the area.
Now, take women's rights in western europe... a millenium ago.
Were people genetically more predisposed to sexism back then? Once again, no. The dogma of the proeminent religion of the time clearly dictated men to be superior to women.
It's no coincidence that women's rights (among many other things) dramatically improved in Europe as christianity began to lose its grasp on the continent.
It's no coincidence that in countries where islam or christianity or judaism still holds an unchallenged absolute authority those rights are almost nonexistent.
But if an atheist considers that there is no benefit at all in religion for other people, then he or she will assume that all religious people are religious either through stupidity (i.e., blindness to the harm religion does) or malice (i.e., willful complicity in this harm).
Or genuine conviction. You can have "faith" that a god exists, or that several gods exist and still realise that religion is detrimental to society.
I can respect faith, personally. It's completely foreign to me, so I can't quite wrap my head around it, but I can respect it.
Though such people will tend to be deists, "spiritual but not religious" or non-denominational types, largely.
Or fear. And this is not a condemnation, fear of annihilation is perfectly legitimate.
I'd say only an idiot doesn't fear oblivion, but some very smart individuals claimed not to, so I won't.
In that respect, a "life after death"-type or "reincarnation"-type dogma can be very comforting.
There might even be other options, but the point is that it's a false dichotomy to say it's either stupidity or malice.
The insistence on the part of atheists that they are never beneficial implies a certain arrogance, an assumption that all of these people during so many centuries were simply too stupid to ever question religion
Too stupid? Quite the opposite.
Self-preservation is a very strong instinct and for most of those centuries publically questionning abrahamic religions would cost you your head.
Obviously I tolerate atheists who don't see religion as beneficial to themselves
Only a sociopath only cares about his own benefit. I prefer to examine the societal impact as a whole; and for abrahamic religions it's not a pretty picture: women's rights, LBGT rights, jihad, opposition to scientific progress, historically a justification for slavery,...