Originally Posted by Pe2k Voices
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."
That's one way to look at it. But, another way to look at it would be that Agnostics have no balls because they are unwilling to pick a side. You see, I have a definite answer because there is definitely no proof of any God.
You can 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 there is 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.
The Caliphate was a time, early on, which showed a glorious mixture of religious following along with scientific advancement. Your point, is moot.