Jesus is more reliable...apart from tipping over a few tables and killing a tree, He showed little in the way of instability.
Not true. He spoke of sending the goats to everlasting fire. And Revelation has its share of death, doom and destruction too. The God of the WHOLE Bible has a pretty consistent violent nature. Discounting the Old Testament just won't fly.
OK, let's say that He did. You hardly have legal credentials to represent the goats, do you? What will you argue before the Court?
What do legal credentials and courts have to do with anything? It doesn't matter whether or not the goats and the Flood victims "deserved" to be punished. The point is that the Jehovah of the Old Testament and the Jesus of the New Testament have exactly the same approach - genocide.
It's about comparing oranges to oranges. The Old Testament orange is the same as the New Testament orange. It doesn't matter whether they are real or fictional. It doesn't matter how much respect one has for Loki or Quezalquatl. It doesn't matter whether scientists believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
The fact is that the God of the Old Testament and the Jesus of the New Testament are equally bloodthirsty - according to the ONLY source of information you have. Your "loving" God is made up.
You first went off the rails when you logically deduced that science determines reality.
You're showing your true anti-science colors.
You cannot claim that you are forced to go where the evidence leads you, for you have rejected belief.
The evidence leads me to reject belief.
You have even said that belief should be a last resort.
OF COURSE it should be a last resort. How can you even suggest otherwise and still claim to have the slightest respect for science?
After reading your last final insistence that your argument is sound, however, i am feeling as if you will never change it no matter how much I send back at you.
But you're not sending anything back.
When my brother was about five years old, we tried to explain to him that the earth is not flat. His response was, "But I think it is." We'd explain the evidence and he'd return, "But I think it is." No matter what we said, his answer would be, "But I think it is."
Your behaviour is exactly the same. You use, "I believe," as an excuse to park your brain at the door and throw the evidence out the window. You even have the gall to suggest that rejecting belief is a bad thing. That's frustrating enough in a five-year-old but there's no excuse for such behaviour in an adult.
It seems odd for someone to preach a message that God was literary fiction, Jesus was embellished, both were bloodthirsty according to the books, and that we are expected to do it ourselves!
One cannot assume that everything is simply fiction just because they have never had reason to think otherwise.
Yes, that's EXACTLY what we should all do. Truth is not a default.