[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by WanderingKnight

Because such knowledge is based on... no actual facts at all? That's why I put it between quotes. People trust those religious leaders blindly without even questioning what they say.

It was as close to facts as anything they had at the time. It's easy for us, thousands of years later, to laugh at their beliefs in spirits and such things. Maybe in two thousand years, snot nosed kids will laugh at us and our quantum physics. Thing is, it's what made sense to them at the time. Just as phlogiston made sense at some point. They weren't being stupid or anything. And I bet some guys healed by the shaman did get better. Was he as good as a modern doctor with modern tools? Of course not. Probably not, anyway... But he was what they had. And he did know a few medicinal plants, even if he thought it was all about spirits or something, instead of biochemistry.

Mind you, there's another problem with blindly trusting everyone with some knowledge we supposedly don't have, but in a relatively more organized society, it's easier to trust someone with a medical degree than a random healer in a village where scientific medicine hasn't seen the light of the day.

But that's the point, isn't it? At the time religion was created, they hadn't even invented the written language to write diplomas with.

Religious "truth" is as arbitrary as it gets. I think we can all see it today, what with the Christian church's hatred for homosexuals, condoms and that sort of stuff. It all depends on the mood of the people making the rules.

Yes and no. While they do have a lot of influence, there are limits to how arbitrary they can get. The Pope may say "no" to condoms, but plenty of catholics will use them all the same.

Originally Posted by ClockWorkAngel

And before I go offending anyone

I think it was too late from the moment you said you laughed at Buddhism. The next paragraph probably didn't help either.

know this, I used to believe in God (When I was a kid some slightly older kid gasped at my disbelief and told me I was going to hell, which is WHY I dislike teaching religion to young impressionable children, let them choose one for themselves, or not when they are mature enough to understand it!)

Eh. From the point of view of someone who believes that not being devout will lead you to hell, it'd be criminal not to teach your kids how to avoid that fate.

but as I grew older, I couldn't accept him because he didn't bring any fulfillment in my life,

You believe based on whether it brings you "fulfillment" or not? How is that different from countless believers out there who have faith and nothing else?