This is the shttest argument against religion I've ever come across. So, certain religions are correllated with certain areas, like languages. I'm not going to stop speaking English, just because I live in England, nor is it going to stop me speaking German. Religions are spread like languages, they are part of a civilistations culture, why is this a reason against their validity?
Some religions developed out of primitive beliefs in the same way as language evolved out of grunting. It would be ridiculous for either of these things to evolve identically around the world. Religions that evolved in this way, with their beliefs traceable back through to earlier, other religions, and even earlier non-religious beliefs, are arguably incorrect. But, several religions have not evolved from earlier pagan customs, to what they are today, through gradual changes; several religions have arisen due to single events in history - Jesus being born, Mohammed prophesying, Buddha doing whatever he did. These religions are not invalidated by the argument that they are found mainly in the area where they arose (and they are believed in across the world anyway). I've read the Golden Bough - a 1000 page comparative study on religion and folklore, and many ancient religions have common themes which are explainable by consistent aspects of our shared Psyche called archetypes (Jung), and not based on divine principles. Christianity, Judaism, and Islam cannot be explained by a natural evolution from early beliefs, while that aborigine, Chinese Ancestor worship, and South American religions can, and can thus be disregarded as superstition or something thereabouts. The original poster needs to do some more reading before he is in a position to claim that he knows what he is talking about.