#416625

Anonymous

Occam's Razor says go with the less complicated one, hence God.

IMO Occam's wouldn't apply to god in the same way it wouldn't apply to Santa Clause kids recieving presents from him. In order to justify god's existence we must say that he plays by a different set of rules than the rest of the universe or that somehow he is outside the universe and regular physical laws.

There's no exhaustive description, except for what has been specifically revealed. Ask Dalibor for the details, I'm not a theologian.

There is a general description that only deviates in details.

The point is that you will never be able to "draw the line". And since fundamental questions pertaining to the purpose of existence are relevant to everyday life I'd recommend the traditional approach of God and religion over equally extraordinary concepts of dubious practical value.

Except for a lot of people the 'traditional approach' doesn't answer anything because within the traditional paradigm you're not supposed to think beyond the group or bedrock tradition or face the wrath of your people's fury for being 'too liberal' 'asking too many questions,' etc. And which traditional approach do we chose from anyway? Before Monotheism ( mainly Jewish , I*slam, and Christian) was the dominate theology in the world it was more traditional pagan beliefs which is reflected in our Slavic past. The path you follow at one time was NOT a traditional approach to god for most of the world and certainly not for Slavs ( only to J>ews mainly) but here you are 2,000 years later convinced the J.ewish God is the truth. What will be the dominate religion ( if any) in another 2,000 years?

Anyway , I actually do not wholy reject your position. Reason being is because at one time I was firmly religious in the traditional Christian way ( Catholic – Orthodox traditionalist as opposed to the Protestant method and all it's little sub-branches) and because I can't stand political atheists or their infatuation with Leftist ideology. Political or militant atheists are drones in their own right and hypocracy shows when they criticize religious people for accepting faith. Political/Militant atheists have irrational faith in governments/social institutions ( man made gods) , they accept popular science as incontrovertable fact not even bothering to really challenge the mainstream , and typically repeat the same ideas over and over again which to me comes off just as irritating as religious repetition. I'm not trying to walk the fence here either. I have no problem calling myself an atheist but I cannot identify with the majority of atheists who also incorporate political/militant Leftism into their world view. Perhaps non-theist would be a more accurate term for me :P.