I always find it ironic when the "Facts and Reason" branch of atheism pretends that we would all be driving flying cars in a peaceful utopia if it weren't for pesky religion.
To be fair, a lot of them spread by the sword. Convert or we kill your tribe. Some of them explicitly call out in their texts that it's OK to forcibly convert or murder non-believers, an attribute which is, I'm sure, a helpful "evolutionary gene" for the religion's spread. There are also religions with non-violent, but still coercive conversion, where there are non-death-related social consequences for nonbelievers.
I'm intrigued to understand your definition of "triumphed", as given the rest of the post I'm assuming you're not referring to the genocide of non-believers, which is, of course, precisely how the major religions achieved such longevity.
It doesn't take much of a leap to go from "I am valuable [because G-d says so]", to "I deserve to be equal to my fellow man, free to make my own choices".
I mean, there's a fairly strong Darwinistic argument for the validity of certain religions. Very few belief systems have survived a hostile environment for anywhere near as long as the big religions.
If religious belief systems are "wrong" (in the sense of being useful for navigating the world, not in the sense of satisfying certain conditions of symbolic logic and reasoning), then why have these religions triumphed over secularism time and time again?
I'd still consider myself an atheist, but even then I'd be careful to be so dismissive of belief systems that have proven themselves over the course of millennia to be incredibly powerful, enlightening and enriching.