Equating Religion with disease is silly. What is a "disease" is purely subjective-- if someone wants a trait (even cancer) then, by any sane definition, it wouldn't be a disease, would it?
Our own culture until recently considered homosexuality a disease. It was just 30 years ago it was removed from the DSM (the American Psychiatric Association's official definition of what constitutions a mental disease).
Cultures have different ways of dealing with death. I don't know any culture that reveres cancer, but there are certainly cultures that revere psychosis (which we consider a disease).
In modern American culture, we treat aging (a purely natural process in many cultures) as a disease.
our allegation that it shouldn't be thought of in terms of good and bad.
The point is that any opinion you have on whether anything is good or bad is, at its core, based on subjective values.
There is no way to base values on reason (you can use reason to expand values, but the core values are purely subjective), and there is no way to base values on universal truth (i.e. truth that is applicable outside of your culture).
... unless of course you would accept a religion. And accepting a religion is exactly what Dawkins, et. al, have done.