I am not quite an aetheist, I am more an agnostic bordering on aetheism because I still beleive in one thing - that a scientist should keep an open mind about all things and that includes the possibility or not of the existence of a godlike being or any other spiritual aspects of the universe.

However, I think you are confusing two definitions here. You say you do not beleive in religion but say nothing about beleif in god or similar. Now, it may seem pedantic but surely the two are not one and the same. Whether god exists or not is a matter for debate and one I relish. The matter of religion is a completely different issue. A god is not their religion and likewise a religion is not a god, even though many would think it to be so.

I do agree with you that a lot of religion is nonsensical, mired in the past and bogged down in dogma (beleive this because we tell you to...). I also agree that a lot of the bad things that have occured in the world are due to religion or religion has been used as an excuse. I think the modern world would be a better place without religion. However, I think the development of religion and what it has done to our minds was an essential step in human development. Without the ability to look at the stars and make shapes or the ability to link coincidences together and attribute them to a primitive deity we would not have the pattern recognition skills essential to modern science. Admittedly, we also would not need the scientific method to persuade our minds to only look for patterns that are actually relevant rather than ones we made up but I don't think we would have got that far in the first place. Religion has also been a driving force behind art, literature and story. The existence of the memeplexes we call religion has meant that we have had to devise more efficient ways to pass these on.

However, in the modern day, religion has lost its relevence. This is possibly due to it being dogmatic and incapable of adapting fast enough to modern times (I mean, seriously, how many Jews do you know who burn thier beds once a month after their wife's period? Its in Leviticus that they have to do this and technically fundamental Christians do too as they claim to follow the bible in its entirity when really they just pick and choose the bits that suit their own prejudices such as the sin of Onan which is completely misinterpreted as being against masturbation when it is really about refusing to shag your dead brother's wife...) Many of these concepts have no use in the modern age and are badly interpreted when they are applied.

I personally prefer to live and let live with regards to religion. So long as you do no harm to me or others (self harm is fine in my book...), do not evangelicise to me or otherwise attempt to 'save me' then I will happily get on with my life while you get on with yours. This is why I am not a 'militant aetheist' or even a 'militant agnostic'. But then I can never see agnosticism getting militant. Its like 'Meh, I dunno what to think, why should I tell you what to think when I can't decide meself?'