>>>>So are you agnostic or an atheist etc...?
>>>
>>>I wouldn't know. Ergo, agnostic. To be an atheist would, IMO, imply negation of existence of god(s), which then implies proving of nonexistence, which is impossible; the definition is such that it doesn't even try to be logical. Proof is logic, faith is negation of logic. The two simply aren't in the same universe. Neither existence nor nonexistence can be proven, and I really wouldn't bother with that piece of code.
>>
>>Wew!.. I see.
>>I was just curious. Actually you and I are not that much different in this... except I may have a wee-bit little more hope.... :)
>
>I have given up hope that the humankind will come to its senses within my lifetime. But in the long run, I expect religion to become obsolete, or we won't last.

Religion might change over time, just as it has in the past, but obsolete? I doubt it. Too many people can't deal with the idea that we are on our own. You've seen enough of the arguments here. In the past we had many gods and that became considered a quaint 'mythology'. Now we have one God, and eventually, I expect that to also become just as quaint a 'mythology'. But it will certainly be replaced by a different and more correct 'truth' to which humans will cling with fervour. I have no idea what that new truth might be, but it will end up being just as divisive and destructive as the current and older truths.

In this particular area, I do not hold out great hopes that humanity in general will come to it's senses. One of the most effective and proven methods for controlling a great number of people is through religion. There are those who can't give it up because of the propping up it gives them, and there are others who can't give it up because of the power it gives them.