Originally Posted by Orthar
You brought up the point of science and evidence. You then said that eventually, because of these two, people would eventually accept it. Obviously if you have thought up this notion, why have you not yet accepted it?
That is why I equated you being an Agnostic to being a believer of any faith.
I was implying that it might eventually come to that point. However, I believe that I, to be as logical as one can be, must take a neutral standing. Agnosticism is great like that, because it is the only belief to have the balls to say, "I don't have a definite answer, so I won't act like I have one."
compare me to be a believer of any faith, just as I can compare any Atheist to it as well. Atheist believe
in there not
being a God, just as Christians simply believe
a God. My opinion, however, is different. I know
that there may or may not be some supreme being, for those are the only two answers to the question. But, since I do not know which answer is the correct answer, I do not attempt to answer it. I can
, however, provide the beliefs of both sides and let the other person choose which his his/her cup of tea. The most wise decision, I think of course, would be Agnosticism.
Science is trying to unravel a very mysterious web of mysteries by exploring and answering. Religion simply attempts to answer, and forget to the exploring part. That is why I think that religion will eventually fall. While it does evolve, it does not evolve nearly as fast as science does.