Part of being a good Bayesian reasoner is to never discount any hypothesis a complete 100% in order to allow for new evidence/information to increase it's probability if it happens to be true, maybe that's what Thomas is attempting, but failing to describe? This doesn't mean we should waste time on actively pursuing absurdly improbable hypotheses, like phlogiston or unicorns. Thomas makes little sense, here, in my opinion. How can someone disbelieve in something they've never heard of? They have no belief if they have never considered a topic....typical stuff here, I guess.

Wouldn't the phrase "informed disbelief" be better than "active disbelief" ? To me the latter sounds like someone who gets up every day and goes looking for any new information on unicorns. There may be such people but I suspect most of us aren't like that. I've thought the question through, weighed the evidence and came to the decision that currently there is no evidence for the existence of unicorns. Moreover I think if such evidence comes to light I will hear about it through the normal sources of new information I peruse each day so I don't have to go out and actively test my unicorn disbelief each day.

It's of interest to atheists if they want to actively disbelieve in God, rather than simply not believing in God because they haven't considered the question.

What I want to believe has nothing to do with what I can believe. I have been considering the question of God's existence for most of my life, and except for a brief time during my youth, I could not regard his existence as more likely than his nonexistence.

http://www.palmreadingastrology.com/palmistry-hand-shapes-for-male/

The OT can only describe God in human/creature terms but that doesn't mean you should limit your thinking to those descriptions because they are inadequate.

But the New Testament is God in human form. In the OT man is searching to understand God, in the NT God comes to meet man.

Again, I recommend reading the OT as if you accepted the philosophical proofs then revisit those proofs.

When I do that it doesn't make sense. The OT does not present God in that way. It presents him as someone who walks. Who shares an image with humans. Who has emotions, who can een. In the New Testament he is portrayed as an actual and literal human being.

You can pick any perspective and read any text from it and interpret that way.

If you were right about the philosophical arguments for god, and you could establish that the Bible was related to it, sure. But absent that I see no reason to do that.

Thanks for the ongoing dialogue.
I first read/learned about God from the bible and other catechetical methods such as hymns and stained glass and the preaching at church, etc. Unfortunately I was never exposed to the reasoning for the proof of God. So I approached it the same way you do now. And the more I learned about the natural world the harder it was to accept the supernatural. I could only accept it as faith. Which works for some people but I could feel my belief being challenged. I didn't like the circular reasoning.
Then I studied the reasoning and was convinced of the reality. Now when I read the bible I understand it as man progressively understanding God, trying to understand the God of philosophy but not in philosophical terms.
I know that you've been exposed to the reasoning and are not convinced by it but you should consider reading some of the OT from the viewpoint of God as being and God as reality rather than as God as an invisible man in the sky.

I am making an interpretation of the OT based on its own text and expressing my opinion of the character called Yaweh from that text. I am bringing my own perspective and values to that character.

You are choosing the character of Yaweh, then interpreting the text accordingly. I think this is unreasonable and unjustified.

I get why you do it, but I do not think you can justify it.

We are both choosing an interpretation, I am choosing to view God as being (not as A being) which is convertible with goodness, you are choosing to view God as A being who does evil actions.
I can understand your disappointment in the being that you describe, but I wonder how you would consider the events of the OT if you considered them from the perspective that I am using.

You can do that if you like, I expect it is what neo nazis do with Mein Kempf. Sure millions were killed, but if you choose the interpretation that it is good, you can interpret all kinds of genocide, torture etc as good. Others miss the point because they don't understand Neitsche, evolution etc. once you understand thehilosophy and history, you will see that this counter intuitive argument that all that war and genocide was worth it. Etc.

I'm happy to debate the philosophy and the history, but if the other side argues that they are choosing their interpretation, ok.