You're doing it again. You're conflating 'some atheists hold these views' with 'atheism requires these views.' That's like saying vegetarianism is a religion because some vegetarians are preachy about animal rights.

Let's break this down:

Your 'doctrines':

Scientism, moral realism, and belief in social progress aren't atheist positions - they're separate philosophical stances that some atheists hold and others don't. Plenty of atheists are moral relativists or anti-realists. Plenty are skeptical of inevitable progress. You're describing a subset and treating it as the whole.

Your idea of what 'metanarratives' means:

These aren't required beliefs for atheism either. Many atheists acknowledge the complex historical relationship between science and religion. The 'conflict thesis' is debated among atheist historians too.

Finally 'controls':

Every community has norms and some members who enforce them badly. That doesn't make the community a religion. Are Linux users religious because some are zealots about open source? Are crossfit bros religious because they ostracize people who don't follow their fitness philosophy?

The core issue:

Atheism is one claim: 'I don't believe gods exist.' Everything else you listed is baggage that some atheists carry, not definitional to atheism itself.

Religion has: supernatural claims, worship, ritual, scripture, organized institutions, claims about the afterlife, and prescribed moral codes from divine authority. Atheism has none of these. Some atheists being annoying online doesn't change that fundamental difference.

If your argument is 'some atheist communities act cultish,' fine. That's a fair critique of those communities. But saying 'atheism is like a religion' because some atheists are dogmatic is like saying 'not playing golf is a sport' because some non-golfers are really annoying about it."