Similarly, bestselling author Christopher Hitchens often compared belief in God to blind faith in a totalitarian political leader and called religion "... violent, irrational, intolerant, allied to racism, tribalism, and bigotry, invested in ignorance and hostile to free inquiry ..." In light of those comments, it shouldn't surprise atheists that the religious majority remains skeptical of them. Calling people you disagree delusional isn't a good way to build rapport or generate sympathy.
Who cares about building rapport and sympathy! The truth is the truth, it doesn't matter if someone sugar-coats if for you or not. There are plenty of softly-softly types of non-believers out there, and there's plenty of room for someone who is outspoken and knowledgeable, and confrontational. It's needed infact, to show that religion is not some subject immune from criticism or ridicule. Theists can feel free to complain all they like, to take offence at an inconsequential comment whilst ignoring the main point of the argument. I don't think the atheist team really wants people like that anyway.
It's allowable for Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, Atkins, etc to posit bitter, emotional, personal diatribes and personal biographical statements on why they hate religion.
It's not, however, allowable to parade their philosophically and intellectually embarrassing bile of books as a product of a sort of contemporary intelligentsia whom are in any position to even address arguments for the existence of God, much less attempt to formulate arguments against the existence of God themselves.