Earlier quoted context omitted.
Atheists often bring up religion as a source of conflict, and there is some truth to this. But it isn't the whole picture. Religion is often just another expression of cultural differences, which along with conflicts for resources is the biggest driver for conflict. Religion is just part of the package. A non-religious example which often shows up among atheists is feminism, which is really just an expression for dif…
> If cultures interact a lot, they often end up with the same religion anyway. This is what people always seem to forget. "Diversity" within a culture does not bring diversity, ironically, but merely causes one side to be assimilated into the other, losing it's distinct identity.
At the same time, you do have a good point. When you consider colonialism, what it represented was non-assimilation. One criticism of British Colonialism in India has been that unlike other Invasions (Greeks, Persians, Central Asian etc..), the British never did assimilate into India. The Mughals for example were conquerers from Central Asia (descendants from Mongols), but dropped their ties and forged new ones in India. That never happened in Colonialism not just by the British but every Colonial power. So, in that sense you are right about assimilation but its a bit more complex than that.