That doesn't really follow though, does it? You haven't shown that the world is poisonous when theism is rejected, just that following a religion seems to correlate with benefits for the user, and that a high IQ correlates with things you consider negative.
So, what you haven't done is shown either that atheism is poison, or that rejection of religion is poison.
Edit: God, why does posting on this board make me feel like I'm marking undergrad philosophy papers?
Pointless barbs aside lets look at the definition of poison.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/poisonnoun
1. a substance with an inherent property that tends to destroy life or impair health.
2. something harmful or pernicious, as to happiness or well-being:
Your failure to follow stems from a frame of reference error. You are looking at the world as if atheism is normal and theism is the intervention. In actuality theism is the base human state dating back to the earliest records of human life. It is widespread atheism the modern phenomenon or intervention.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_religion#Prehistoric_period_.28300th_millennium_to_34th_century_BCE.29 Multiple studies of fertility show that those who have adopted the atheist philosophy have a fertility rate that drops below 2.1 the minimum needed for replacement of the population. Atheist have also been shown to report significantly lower levels of wellbeing compared to the highly religious. I provided multiple other more abstract and anecdotal examples of toxicity in the OP. From this follows the conclusion that the adoption of an atheistic worldview is likely poisonous to homo sapiens.
The point on high IQ is tangential and I brought it up only to show that high IQ individuals who usually make good decisions in most areas may be predisposed to error in this one.
