It is true that there are many regions of the world susceptible to a certain religion and cultural bias does influence the percentages of religions but that would raise the question of how religions started. If what you say is true then there couldnâ??t be any other religions since humanity was all born in the same region and also the fact the you assume everyone in India is Hindu and everyone in salt lake city is Mormon makes you look like an asshole
Dude, no need for the name calling.... you asshole! (j/k ) . He didnt' actually say all people of these places are the same religion, just the very true point that religion, at least initially, is based on which culture you were born into. He also never said that new religions couldn't come up, that people don't rebel, or that one can change faith, he's just talking about the general population for which the religion resides. Does a poster really need to specifically state ".... or he would be Hindu if born in India. And by that I mean if he was born into a Hindu family, and no sihk's or muslims tried to convert him, and etc etc etc..." The basic point is there, you're blowing it out of proportion for not going into uncessesary specifics that are a given.

Religion serves one purpose and one purpose only, to explain the unexplainable, that is how the first religions were started and why they were mostly polytheistic. as the human mind expanded and began to explain these things religions became more and more hard to refute and as more and more people began to believe in certain religions other people saw the opportunity to use this to their own gains (this is where all the politics the apparently forms the basis of every religion comes in)
Well I totally agree with you that religions were invented to explain the unexplainable, but how did they become "harder to refute" as we learned more? Thunder was attributed to a blacksmith of the gods one time, stars were explained as pinprick glimpses into heaven, neuro-chemical imbalance later explained what christians initially thought was the work of demons. If anything I'd say religion becomes more and more difficult to justify as human knowledge expands. Of course once you explain one thing, they move onto the next thing we haven't yet explained and say "well how could that possibly work by itself? I don't know so that proves god did it!".

Blind faith is one of the most important aspects of the major Abrahamic religions but even though you wouldnâ??t like to admit it is also a major aspect of atheism

if an atheist didnâ??t truly with all aspects of his being believe that it is impossible for there to be a god then he wouldnâ??t be an atheist so you sir have blind faith that there is no god, and if your a scientific atheist then there are even more things that you blindly believe in called theories
Sorry but my BULLSHITOMETER is through the roof. I can't count how many times I've heard the argument that atheism requires "faith". It's a typical theist tactic, yet another, to try and put religion on equal grounds of rationality with science.
Religion is a matter of faith, faith in the unseen and the unproven, faith in the existence of things and beings unverified. Atheism is not "I KNOW there's no god!", atheism is a rational decision to not believe in god until there's is ample evidence to do so. The very notion that you have to have "faith" for non-belief is rediculous. If I say gremlims have a mining colony at the center of the sun, can you disprove it? Do you need to have faith that the gremlims aren't there? Or are you just rational enough to know it's illogical to believe in the gremlims without evidence of them?

If a lack of belief in god requires faith, then it's no more faith than a lack of belief in everything else imaginary. In which case, God has no more credibility than the tooth fairy or the flying spagetti monster. It baffles me to this day that millions have now become convinced that "faith" not only applies to belief, but lack of belief as well. This is a very typical example of people who don't understand that atheism is not knowing there isn't a god, it is knowing god is no more plausible than everything else that doesn't exist, until god has been proven or at least has some supporting evidence.