Religulous

I watched Religulous in cinema tonight. It's an entertaining documentary filled with Bill Maher's very funny satires about religion. Maher does a good job in ridiculing the organized religion in its God Business like ways. The documentary has a nice edit and flows very well.

However towards the end of the film, Maher takes a prophet-like tone and talks with a certainty that the movie is supposed to negate. How is he so sure about all his argument? Isn't he offering his views as another religion to us? I wish he had spent some time talking about the extreme atheist crowd too... The group who have an absolutist approach towards negating the existence of God, etc. without strong scientific proof. Isn't that another type of religion? With the same line of attacks!

Yet at the end, I was thinking is it really religion and organized cause that is the root cause of troubles in our world? Or lack of education and debate that eases the way for people to buy the most superstitious readings of each religion? I look at Nazi Germany or Stalinist USSR or Maoist China who caused the most tragic pages of 20th century history and none of them used religion in their platforms (they're actually anti religion). However the ideological approach in all of those three regimes was a fanatic style of blind following that some religious cycles also have.
So does removing or weakening the religion as an isolated move solves the social ignorance problems? Or maybe we should simply create the basic tools of debate and dialogs through education in our societies and trust our people to enlighten themselves and reach a logical consensus?