Morality is a completely separate conversation that has nothing to do with the definition of delusion. I am not in any way going to try and defend religious morality.
Religion is usually not a delusion. It is not in any way a mental illness. Mental illness can trigger delusions that involve religion, but religion itself is in no way a mental illness. This is discussed in a separate post I made on the subject .
I will not argue that religions wield enormous power in society, and that this is in no way healthy. But you cannot honestly characterise the people who run them as deluded unless you mean it in a way that characterises everyone as deluded, essentially making the term meaningless. If instead you use the term to suggest that they are mentally ill then you are simply not correct. While some of them may be mentally ill, indeed being unhealthily narcissistic is overly represented at the top of just about any large organisation, the mental illness they may have is not a symptom of their religion.
“Now that is delusion”. Nothing in the sentences prior to this statement indicates delusion. You point out how society is not structured in a sensible manner, and how people suffer as a result of this. But it is not an indication of delusion.
As for Richard Dawkins, anyone can debate human behaviour, but if you are going to hold someone up as an authority figure, as you did, then you have to demonstrate that they have expertise in the field being discussed. Richard Dawkins, while an admirable scientist in many ways, does not. Being “articulate and intelligent” does not qualify you to be considered an authority figure on anything. I agree that he is articulate an intelligent, but I also find him pompous, arrogant and dismissive of views that he does not agree with/understand. His work on biology is amazing, his works on religion are amazing so long as you already agree with everything he’s saying.