Let me say it with a quote of Richard Dawkins on the example of the God from the old testament:
“The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”
Well, I hope you did read The Bible by yourself to make these statements, rather than leaning only on Dawkins, who seems to seek for reasons to be an atheist. I also hope you did understand the context of what is written in Bible, relating to people's norms, God's treatment of those norms, history of nations, prophecies, etc. Besides, the same “Old Testament” God had sent His Son to the Earth to save humanity, rendering The New Testament and the doctrine of forgiveness, love, friendship, and being the better human being.
Did God instruct people to hate each other? Did He say "kill, murder, hate everyone, and destroy the world" or something like that? I thought He said the complete opposite. Like, love each other, don't kill, don't steal, don't bear false witness, don't be envious, etc. What's so bad about all of it?
Also, we're talking about God, but you said "Gods". Why's that? What do you have against other gods or gods in general?
The thing is, God didn't say any of those things because he doesn't exist.
Okay. And, he doesn't exist because of... Why? What makes you think that?
Because no evidence for his/her existence has been presented.
So absence of evidence is the evidence of absence, did I get it right?
Absence of evidence is absence of evidence. And let's be honest here, we are very similar, we both don't believe that 99,9% of the gods don't exist. I only have one more god than you which I don't believe in. You see no evidence for Zeus and Thor existing same as me.
I'm not trying to blame you for not believing or anything like that. We're just discussing, that's all. I'm trying to say that various things can exist or not exist, regardless of them being proven or not. Even not being proven, God still can exist. As well as there are various things in the past that were once proven, but didn't actually exist and later were deemed as mistakes or misunderstandings or some other phenomena.
Yes each of the gods anyone can come up can exist, even those people don't come up can exist. But as long as there is no evidence for any of them a reasonable stance is to live your life as if none of them exist.
But sadly what people do is not just doing a thought experiment that some hypothetical god could exist, they use the god they came up with to justify all sorts of terrible things.
There is something called the scientific method.
I know it, and I even use it myself in everyday life. So?
But why?
Let me say it with a quote of Richard Dawkins on the example of the God from the old testament:
Well, I hope you did read The Bible by yourself to make these statements, rather than leaning only on Dawkins, who seems to seek for reasons to be an atheist. I also hope you did understand the context of what is written in Bible, relating to people's norms, God's treatment of those norms, history of nations, prophecies, etc. Besides, the same “Old Testament” God had sent His Son to the Earth to save humanity, rendering The New Testament and the doctrine of forgiveness, love, friendship, and being the better human being.
Did God instruct people to hate each other? Did He say "kill, murder, hate everyone, and destroy the world" or something like that? I thought He said the complete opposite. Like, love each other, don't kill, don't steal, don't bear false witness, don't be envious, etc. What's so bad about all of it?
Also, we're talking about God, but you said "Gods". Why's that? What do you have against other gods or gods in general?
The thing is, God didn't say any of those things because he doesn't exist.
Okay. And, he doesn't exist because of... Why? What makes you think that?
Because no evidence for his/her existence has been presented.
So absence of evidence is the evidence of absence, did I get it right?
Absence of evidence is absence of evidence. And let's be honest here, we are very similar, we both don't believe that 99,9% of the gods don't exist. I only have one more god than you which I don't believe in. You see no evidence for Zeus and Thor existing same as me.
I'm not trying to blame you for not believing or anything like that. We're just discussing, that's all. I'm trying to say that various things can exist or not exist, regardless of them being proven or not. Even not being proven, God still can exist. As well as there are various things in the past that were once proven, but didn't actually exist and later were deemed as mistakes or misunderstandings or some other phenomena.
Yes each of the gods anyone can come up can exist, even those people don't come up can exist. But as long as there is no evidence for any of them a reasonable stance is to live your life as if none of them exist.
But sadly what people do is not just doing a thought experiment that some hypothetical god could exist, they use the god they came up with to justify all sorts of terrible things.
There is something called the scientific method.
I know it, and I even use it myself in everyday life. So?