Why are there so many religions and sects?

Tolerance is a skill that comes with experience.

Another factor to consider is the economic. There are religious groups that handle a large amount of money. Religions get together individuals, but divide families and societies.

You could start a similar thread on nationalism and politics: same concept.

I swear I've seen this somewhere.

I remember partaking in a discusion as well.
Oh let's see, this is what I'm talking about. There are three pages in this forum devoted to that here: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?114582-Why-are-there-so-many-religions-and-sects

Attention whore.

Mockingclown. it's the same author: sibilia.

Yes, I can see darling. Why else do you think I called you that in the end.

Bruce Hornsby's answer should suffice. i.e., That's just the way it is.

Your phrasing of the basic question is somewhat awkward, making it difficult to ascertain what, precisely, you are asking. (That silly pentagram diagram doesn't help at all. And, btw, there is no such religion as Islamism: it's Islam.) The main question, as stated in your headline, is easy to answer. There are so many different religions because different groups of humans, living in relative isolation from other groups, have developed their own religious traditions much as different groups have developed different languages and different ways of governing.

But then you switch to a diatribe on 'tolerance.' Is there a question implied in there? I don't see it. A multiplicity of religious beliefs and practices does not need to lead to intolerance (although it frequently does). I presume you are familiar with the Unitarian/Universalist sect of Christianity which is not, in fact, Christian at all but leans over backward to recognize and validate virtually every belief system on earth. There's tolerance for you in spades.

(There's an old joke about Unitarians who also happened to be members of the KKK. They would burn a question mark on an unpopular person's lawn.)

So what, precisely, is you r question?

Are you a GIRL or a GAY?

I'm an atheist, but I was raised in the gospel. I defend Christianity but I reject violent and immoral dogma of some religions. Religion is a lucrative business.

You've answered my question.

If you defend christianity, you are defending violent and immoral dogma.

Violent people are not Christian, they are pseudochristian.

That's the oldest dodge on the books. Muslims can well say that violent people are not Muslims, that they are "pseudo-Muslims." That's a cop out, and avoids the undeniable evidence that religious adherence does not prevent violence, and that religious dogma can be used to justify immoral practices, without regard to the religion. I agree with defending individuals who are being attacked because of their religious confession; i strongly disagree that any particular religious confession is more "moral" than any other. You have a HUGE blind spot.

I can see many things that you can not see, how that religions cause wars and the enrichment of a few people.

Actually, your conceit is rather silly. While it is undoubtedly true that many people have enriched themselves by virtue of exploiting religious sentiment, the christians are one of the most deplorable examples of that. Nevertheless, religion did not make them greedy, nor would the lack of it prevent their greed.

As for wars, by and large, religion is an excuse, but not a genuine cause. For example, the Popes of the 12th and 13th century wanted a crusade against the people known as the Cathars. However, they could not get up much interest in it until the early 13th century, when Innocent III cnospired with the King of France to offer the lands of the alleged heretics to any Frenchman who would take the cross. Even when the Count of Toulousse surrendered, they took his lands away from him. Money and politics trump religion every time.

In what we call Spain in the centuries leading up to the reconquista of the late 15th century, christian soldiers signed on with Muslims in their wars, and the reverse was true, as well. Money trumps religion and politics.

In the second phase of the Thirty Years War, the Protestant king of Sweden, Gustav Adolf (a.k.a. Gustavus Adolphus) badly defeated the Imperialist forces after he landed in north Germany in 1630. The French had already become alarmed at the prospect of the growing power of the Holy Roman Empire, in particular of the archdukes of Austria, so Cardinal Richelieu began to financially support the Swedes, and later sent French troops into Germany. Catholic France supported Protestant Sweden in order to defeat Catholic Austria. Money and politics always trump religion.

You've really got no business telling me what i cannot see.

You must be a priest or a shepherd that reject the Jesus Christ's believes.

A presto Setanta.

The so-called Thirty Years War really had many reasons (and actually wasn't one war but at least 13 wars with 10 peace treaties).
The religious part started already in early 16hundred ... and after the Reichstag in Regensburg, 1608, the preparations for a religious larger conflict were 'prepared'. The 'powder-keg' literally exploded after the following Regensburg Reichtag in 1618

I personally think the drunken king of Denmark had a lot to do with the outbreak of war, but whether or not one agrees with that, ihere is no doubt that when France became alarmed at the growing power of Austria, reliigion no longer mattered. Money and politics trump religion every time.

Well, it really started, though, as a war between the German Catholic League and the Protestant Union ...

Yes, and it might have ended with the battle of the White Mountain, had Christian not had ambitions to take the see of Bremen, and control of the Elbe and the Weser. That was a war which kept trying to end, but peopole just wouldn't let it.