Atheists are fine. I like atheists.
Atheists intruding in religious dialog and community for the sake of converting and/or destroying them, I do not like.
I have dedicated a significant portion of my life to worldly scholarship and knowledge, and do not in any way begrudge those for whom focus on these or related things is a legitimate calling.
That said? Atheists making statements about theistic religion being problematic because of moral behavior and bettering our world, speaking from a place of erasing the possibility of the gods (and reducing them down to archetypes or hallucinations) sound a lot like this:
“Rainforest preservation activists really concern me. If they cared so much about making the world a better place, why are they so driven to protect a thing I’ve never visited, seen, or experienced? I don’t think I am alone in stating that the rainforest is a complete fantasy, and that our American society has obviously progressed beyond the novelty of needing fantastical temperate and tropical forests whose precipitation can be fancifully measured at between 250 and 450 centimeters annually. With our sophisticated methods of thought, philosophy, education, empirical understanding of rational nature, and el nino, we no longer need to cling to desperate ecological magics such as the myth of the rainforest. Instead we should draw upon the vivid imagery of pop-up books and Kipling’s colonialist noble savagery in order to — as rational human beings manifesting a mature stewardship of our own futures — use them as metaphoric models of our own collective rainforest, which is born obviously of mythic consciousness colliding with the tears of our lost innocence. I am deeply concerned for the psychiatric welfare of people who write seriously about rainforests as though they are real. Tell me: do you truly believe this, rainforest activists? Surely you mean these words only as symbolic reference, yes? You’re not so much a nutter as to truly believe in rainforests, or magical beasts like the jaguar and the tapir or the mythic anaconda? And, besides, if the only way that a person can engage with their world in an active and moral way is to seek to serve a place that does not really exist, they are causing great harm. What has this “rainforest” ever done for humans? How does it solve the real issues in the real world, like poverty and insurance lawyers who co-opt religious dialog in mic-stealing spot-light theft in order to futilely fend off gnawing insecurities and profound doubt in their own petty life choices? Let’s focus on the the real world. The one without rainforests.”
It turns out that a person can still respect rainforest activism without having been to one.