What are the benefits of having a DSLR camera over a really nice point and shoot?

I recently discovered I not only enjoy photography, but am good at it. I've even had a few people ask me to photograph them or their kids for money. So I bought a Nikon P520 and have been very happy with the results I get using that and Corel photo editing. HOWEVER… I have come across some folds who have the dslr and I love the sounds it makes XD this is a stupid reason to buy a expensive camera, but am I missing out on anything by not having one? Or are theyr eally for pros and hard core hobbiests?

Added (1). Just to clarify, the cool sounds the cameras make is what drew my attention to them as a beginner, not why I would buy one. That is why I'm asking more experienced photographers the benefits of owning one over what I already have.
If it matters, my main areas of interest to photograph are portraits and architecture, some landscapes.

DSLR cameras are best. Photoshop friendly.

Benefits of a DSLR;
- shoots raw
- larger sensor (= better performance in low light especially)
- less lag time
- has a hotshoe for off camera flash control
- has interchangeable lenses, which are of far superior optical quality than the 'one lens fits all' on a P&S
- has more options for aperture control - most P&S can't go wider than f2 or narrower than f8
- longer shutter speeds & has a bulb mode for v long exposures
- has filter threads on the lens for connecting filters

Benefits of a P&S
- lighter
- less lenses to carry around

Edit: If you shoot portraiture, you will benefit from having wider apertures & larger sensor in a DSLR both of which will allow for a shallower depth of field (ie background blur).

Some point and shoots are better than SLRs for certain jobs. For example, I use small 35mm film zone focus compacts for street - far more discreet than a big chunky DSLR.

The beauty of DSLRs (or SLRs) are the speed, the interchangeable lens - a lens for the job, fast exposure speeds, sensor sensitivity, full manual controls, RAW format, and a through the lens view.

But they are not for everybody. If you don't take photography seriously, then a nice little point and shoot for the pocket is far more practical. Even a decent mobile phone camera can be cool for that sort of snapshot use. There's a lot of snobbery around - elitism. Some of this is promoted by big business to stimulate the markets. It's become hipster to carry a big piece of black canikon plastic.

Better photo-sensor, shoot in RAW, far superior and sharper lens, interchangeable lenses, control aperture (f-stop) and iso (I don't know, maybe point and shoots can do that now adays), control the dof, attach flashes, generally better built. You name it. They are better than point and shoots in every way. However, the cost is very high, and lenses are even more so.

Two things. The rest are added features: superior optics and a larger sensor.

There are a lot of advantages, but the two biggest are

1) A lot more control. The ability to manually adjust shutter speed, aperture, ISO, and focus is great if you know what those things do.

2) They typically have larger sensors, so all other things being equal, the larger sensors will deliver better image quality especially while using higher ISO's.