The problem is neither religion nor the people involved in it. The problem is evidence. Or, rather, the lack of evidence.

Let me put it this way:

1) I know General Relativity is true because we have piles of solid experimental evidence showing it to be true. Because I know it's true, I believe it.

2) I know phlogiston theory isn't true because we have evidence disproving it. Because I know it isn't true, I don't believe it.

3) I am agnostic as to whether the theory that mermaids live under the surface of Europa is true because we don't have good evidence either way, yet. But because it's an extraordinary claim that I don't know is true or not, I don't believe it. Because why would I believe something like that if the person claiming it can't prove it? If we got evidence showing it to be true, I would believe it (and if we got evidence showing it to be false, I would continue not to believe it).

Religion falls into category three. There is no evidence either way, so we must be agnostic as to it. But because it's an extraordinary claim with zero supporting evidence, our agnosticism means we must not believe it until and if compelling positive evidence is presented.

This has nothing to do with religion or people; this has everything to do with religions making unsupported claims about reality.