There are a million things bothering me, but Chou answered most of them. I'll argue the rest.
Basically, you're saying atheism is a failed attempt to substitute religion. Well then, what ARE you supposed to do when you don't believe in a diety, or even have lingering doubts about one? Just keep believing? That isn't faith at all, that's wishful thinking. And most likely the only reason most people would keep on believing is because they're afraid of death. I know you say that atheists have no moral system, but I find believing in God and giving God all your love only because you're afraid of death to be one of the most morally reprehensible things you can do.
Well the problem is your starting point. Wikey's post is the more vitriolic version of "you only do these things because otherwise you'll burn in hell! You're all cowards!"
Atheists never seem to grasp that they have the wrong starting point. No matter how often you point out free will is a concept in most religions, they don't accept the idea that religious people are doing things because they are good rather than because not doing them means you will go to hell. Their belief in the power of negative reinforcement borders on the irrational.
This assumption almost never changes from atheist to atheist. For some reason they believe that because most major religions have a concept of hell, religious people are compelled primarily by fear.
Hell not the firey, brimstoney place you go to for doing bad things like in the movies. Hell is literally the absense of God. You get there because you rejected God through your actions in life. Nobody knows who is in hell. While the Catholic Church does have a process for determining who they know is in heaven (Saints), nowhere will you find a list of people they know to be in hell. Be they historical monsters like Hitler and Stalin or perverse pop culture icons like Michael Jackson or Anna Nicole Smith, nobody can say definitively who is in hell. There is zero rational basis for a religious person to act because they fear hell. Moreover there is also zero rational basis for a religious person to act because they fear death. The entire concept of most religions is that there is a life beyond death to prepare for. Atheists are much more afraid of death than the religious; I have never understood why they need to project their own fears on the religious. Maybe because they think they only have one shot to "make their mark," and the sensibilities of religious people might get in their way.
You're also classifying all atheists as the same. Atheism is (and was stated a million times) the absence of religion. There are many kinds of atheists, from those who claim there is no god to those that hold no belief to the existence of a god (the so called agnostics). To claim that all of atheism is a "self-reliant narcissism" is absurd.
I'm going to take your framework and split it down like this:
Hard atheism: people who adamantly believe there is no God and any belief in such is an indication of dangerousness or insanity. This is where self-reliant narcissism comes in, these people cannot stand that anyone believes in a higher power than the hard atheist's intelligence.
Soft atheism: people who adamantly believe there is no God, but respect that other people have come to a different conclusion.
Agnosticism: people who do not know one way or the other whether there is a God.
The most vocal atheism is hard atheism. It's hardly an absurd notion to put them all together when the greatest fundamental pinning of hard atheism is a rush to judgement on the religious based on ignorance. Hard atheists often don't study religion or try to apply that great rationality they claim to posess, they just have a punchclock understanding of religious generalities and phone in their moral indignation. To offer the same generalization in reverse: hard atheists only act because it makes them feel good. They have no concept of an absolute right or wrong, just a gut feeling they've derived from whatever philosophers they've read, if any. Get in their way and their morality will change based on new philosophers convenient to them at that moment. The hard atheist is the person who insults me, insults my intelligence, tells me I believe in stories, and attempts to excuse their gross ignorance by claiming I am full of hate, or dangerous, or insane. Most of my posts are addressed to hard atheists because they are the most vocal and deserving of a reality check.
In contrast, I have no qualms with soft atheists or agnostics because they don't go around picking fights. You're free to believe whatever you want about a deity or a higher plane or whatever. My hope is that some of my arguments will appeal to you and you'll come away with a better understanding of religion and what makes religious people tick.
People rely on faith every day of their lives. Faith is essential to trust. When you first meet a person the only way you can start a good relationship is to put forward that good faith in them. You have no evidence on which to base their character. You can't just punch an algorythm into a machine and have it come out as binary good or bad. With due respect to Mr. Twain, he wouldn't have published if he had no faith that people would read his words. He may not have expected the proliferation, but nonetheless he believed his words were worth putting down on paper for public release. Very few authors indeed recieve acclamation or even notice of their work. On a purely statistical basis there is no reason to publish if your motive is anything but seeing your own name in print (and many more don't even get that far.)
Secondly, you said somewhere that there's no reason for atheists to do good onto others. However, in practice, game theory is wrong and back scratching each other actually leads to more of us winning in the end. Not only that, but material goods is not the only thing most humans value. Having the respect and admiration of our peers is much sought after as well. I know some atheists believe strongly in moral codes, but I understand that's a minority. This minority, however, are much more admirable than almost all Christians because there is nothing pressuring them to behave that way, unlike Christians who do it because they're told to if they want to stay in God's favor.
Insofar as people act in their own self-interest, that is all well and good, but reciprocation is morally nuetral. Everyone involved in a ponzi scheme is rewarded except for the sucker.
For those atheists that have a moral code, it is a form of self-discipline and so it mimics the function of religion for that individual. They may not have a religion officially, which I would say does limit their ability to spread their goodwill. Religion not only offers a moral code, it also provides a network to enhance humanity's positive intentions. The idea non-religious peole who do postive good aren't "pressured" however is nonsense. They want to feel good about themselves and whatever their moral code does for others, its primary purpose is their own gratification. The feeling of personal pleasure is what pressures them. For the religious, the pleasure that comes with doing good is just a biological feedback for doing the right thing. Though a lot of the good that religious people do is among people so crestfallen and jaded that gratitude never comes. It's when there's no positive reinforcement where the test of true charity comes in. The point is actually doing the work. It doesn't really matter whose motive is better. If you're doing it because you think your motive is better you've missed the point.
At the very least you said that atheists believe in doing no harm, because saying otherwise would have been much too easy to refute. I know it feels unfair to have 100 vs 1, but you can't just insult the vast majority of the site and expect everything to go over smoothly.
Hey, the vast majority of the site has no problems insulting the vast majority of people who aren't on the interwebs. I'm simply a voice for them that also happens to enjoy competitive Pokemon, thus why I'm here. More to the point I try to be very specific in attacking ideas rather than people, although if pressed I do get a little too loose with my t's and m's. Still working on that.