Why is God even worthy of our worship?

Great Debates
121

[QUOTE=CJJ*]
With all due respect, “shit happens” isn’t an explanation for anything. Of course, the alternatives you cite–the person did something wrong, a deity playing tricks–are not explanations either.

One of the consistent themes I see in this thread is that the typical Christian response to tragedy–“God works in mysterious ways”–is ridiculous. On some level I agree, but let’s flesh out the story a bit more.

Believing the Christian idea that there is some unknowable purpose behind even the most heinous events is not as callous as it is usually presented, which is often as an ignorant moron spouting platitudes like the one above. But even laying that criticism aside, I wonder if you’d agree with the following motive: That in trying however awkwardly to offer another human being solace for some terrible loss–and at some point, when someone suffers a terrible loss, they almost inevitably ask “why?”–what they are really trying to offer is (here’s that word again) comfort.

Many may consider that comfort inadequate, and perhaps even vicious, but I also believe that the alternative non-Theist answer–“shit happens”–is even less of a comfort. I’m not saying this to belittle atheism, but merely to point out that it doesn’t do any better of a job that actions rooted in Theism do in this case, so I don’t believe it’s a valid criticism of Theism.
[/quote]

“Shit happens” and “Mysterious ways” are really the same thing. The Mysterious Ways argument can really be condensed into “God happens” which is no answer at all and offers no compelling reason to trust God.

God can explain himself to me or sod off.

122

[QUOTE=CJJ*]
This, I think, is a key flaw with atheism: Its easy dismissal and poo-pooing of the comfort belief in God provides.
[/quote]
Illegal narcotics can do the same thing; I poo-poo them as well.

[QUOTE=CJJ*]
My question for atheists–in all seriousness–is what comfort does non-belief in God provide?
[/QUOTE]
It eliminates the fear that I am the slave of a divine tyrant, and the fear that I will be tortured forever in hell by a supernatural sadist ( the Marquis DeGod, as I’ve heard it put ). It offers the hope we can make the world and ourselves better, because God won’t stop us.

[QUOTE=Mayo Speaks!]
God does allow things that seem horrible (to us humans) to happen: wars, disease, natural disasters, and a whole lot more.
[/QUOTE]
There is no seems; they are horrible. God’s opinion on the matter can’t change that.

[QUOTE=Mayo Speaks!]
If you meant that God allows bad things to happen, then I’d agree, but only in the eyes of humanity. Every thing that God does or allows to happen is ultimatlely for the good of the Universe.
[/QUOTE]
As the ones doing the suffering, our opinion is what matters, not God’s plans. No amount of good can make up for the suffering of the world.

[QUOTE=TheFonz]
Because you don’t understand why the Egyptian leadership forced him to do all those things.
[/quote]
Now I have this image of the Pharaoh putting Jehovah in an armlock and talking like an old-style movie mobster; “Okay, Jehovah, here’s what it’s gonna be like, see ? Nice Heaven you have; be a shame if something happened to it . . .”

[QUOTE=TheFonz]
Taking a look around the world, you don’t see how having a God around could help shape things up a bit?
[/quote]
Belief in God/religion is the greatest single source of evil in human history, in my opinion, so no. A real divine monster is hardly an improvement over an imaginary divine monster.

[QUOTE=TheFonz]
All the genetic deformities that our scientists can’t explain that cause so much suffering: healed.
[/quote]
Except that God if he exists obviously wants people to suffer those diseases, or he would have never permitted them to exist.

[QUOTE=TheFonz]
All the separated peoples of the world who are at war: commanded to drop their differences because a whole new order is finally here.
[/quote]
No, a new age of slaughter in his name would commence if he showed up.

[QUOTE=TheFonz]
If this were a perfect world everybody would understand why we would need to give thanks and praise to the Lord, because he keeps everything A-OK. If you fear your thoughts will offend God, then maybe there is something wrong with what you’re thinking? Maybe those thoughts will spread to others like a cancer and slowly corrupt their thoughts as well, in which case keep it to yourself.
[/quote]
It’s not a perfect world, and if there’s a God he’s evil. If he existed, I would regard it as the duty of me and all other decent beings in the universe to find a way to kill him. If my thoughts offend God, it’s because I am a good and rational person ( or try to be ), and God is the enemy of all that is good and rational.

[QUOTE=Telemark]
Then you need to get out more. There are lots of athiests who don’t celebrate Christmas. I find it hard to think of Christmas as a non-religious holiday.
[/QUOTE]
For what it’s worth, I celebrate Christmas, and you don’t get much more atheist than me. I just don’t sing any of the religious carols or pray, or imply Santa exists.

123

[QUOTE=David Simmons]
Even non-Christians, in the northern hemisphere of course, are glad that the sun has finally turned around and is coming back our way.
[/QUOTE]

Yeah, here in the Southern Hemisphere, it’s all doom and gloom as we realise the sun is on it’s way out…
…well, it would be, if we weren’t all sitting on beaches, plastered on Cranberry Daquiris, catching a tan. Man, I love “The Holidays” or “eX-mas” as the religious call it. And my atheism burns with the (electric!) fire of a thousand suns.

124

[QUOTE=Mayo Speaks!]
I have more than His word. I have faith within my heart and soul. I don’t know how it got there, and I certainly did not seek it. But it is there, and it is overpowering. There is no doubt in my mind that God is wholly good. If you do not believe that, I cannot convince you that it is true or even explain why I think it is. Logically, could I be worshipping an evil God? Perhaps. But I know that I am not. (I use “know” here to mean that it is something about which I have absolutely no doubt.)
[/QUOTE]

The faith must have gotten there from some source / mixture of sources right?

125

Scylla, Cjj, whoever else believe that you can pick and choose what parts of the bible are true and which are not, I have a question.

How do you know you are right? Why couldnt it be possible that it is all true, and that god really did all the evil stuff? You mention something about that the things do not correspond with your view of god. But who is to say that your view of god is right?

126

[QUOTE=mr. jp]
How do you know you are right? Why couldnt it be possible that it is all true, and that god really did all the evil stuff? You mention something about that the things do not correspond with your view of god. But who is to say that your view of god is right?
[/QUOTE]

I don’t know that I’m right.

127

[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
“Shit happens” and “Mysterious ways” are really the same thing. The Mysterious Ways argument can really be condensed into “God happens” which is no answer at all and offers no compelling reason to trust God.

God can explain himself to me or sod off.
[/QUOTE]

and that, for me, is exactly it. There’s going to come a day when, according to the stories, I will have to stand in front of a golden throne and give an account of myself to god. When will god account himself to me? Because his sins against me are far far mightier than mine against him.

Until then I spit in his eye.

mm

128

[QUOTE=Scylla]
I don’t know that I’m right.
[/QUOTE]

ok. So why do you even think you are right?

For clarity, I will specify again. Either God did some of the stuff in the bible, and the other parts are lies / stories made up by the writers. Or God actually did all it says in there. What is your reason for thinking that the former is true? You would like God to be in a certain way, but that doesn’t mean he is that way.

129

Whatever gave you that idea?

130

[QUOTE=mr. jp]
The faith must have gotten there from some source / mixture of sources right?
[/QUOTE]

Hehe, I just realized how much that sounded like a line from one of Plato’s works.

Socrates: The faith must have gotten there from some source / mixture of sources right?

Some other greek person: Yes

Socrates: And these sources can be either perfect or imperfect?

Some other greek person: I agree

etc.

131

[QUOTE=mr. jp]
ok. So why do you even think you are right?

For clarity, I will specify again. Either God did some of the stuff in the bible, and the other parts are lies / stories made up by the writers. Or God actually did all it says in there. What is your reason for thinking that the former is true? You would like God to be in a certain way, but that doesn’t mean he is that way.
[/QUOTE]

You forgot the third option: maybe it’s *all * a crock.

132

[QUOTE=Voyager]
General Ripper, is that you? :stuck_out_tongue:

[/QUOTE]

You think that’s funny.

I think that’s funny.

I’m afraid our man TheFonz may see that as a sadly apt comparison.
Purity of essence, man, purity of essence!

133

It all boils down to what some one wrote or said God did, or did not do. As far as we know God didn’t say anything or do anything, it is blamed on God or credited to Him. We can say “if” God said this or that or did this or that then Kudos or shame.Even the 10 commandments doesn’t say God wanted worship,it just states not to put other Gods before Him,and to love him.

The authors of the bible or any book (religious or not) were human and that can be a proven fact. One can believe that God inspired something but belief doesn’t make it so.

Monavis

134

[QUOTE=mr. jp]
ok. So why do you even think you are right?

For clarity, I will specify again. Either God did some of the stuff in the bible, and the other parts are lies / stories made up by the writers. Or God actually did all it says in there. What is your reason for thinking that the former is true?
[/quote]

Because some of the Bible are traceable to earlier stories that were adapted. We can read some of those earlier stories.

Some of the stories do not fit with things we know now to be true. We know the earth was not created as described in Genesis, in seven days. Contrary to your understanding that does not make it a lie, or made up. That was man’s best attempt at the time to describe his universe. Similarly, Isaac Newton did not lie or make up things when he described his physics simply because our understanding of physics has progressed since then. Newtonian physics are still valuable.

Thirdly, some of it is fairly obviously meant to be parable or morality play.

These problems are not unique to the Bible. They occur all the time. Even in modern times, you get four witnesses to an event and they will describe it in four different ways.

It’s not an either/or proposition either like you are trying to make it. In doing so you’re committing the fallacy of the excluded middle.

Thanks a lot for telling me what’s in my head :rolleyes: For someone who questions the basis of other people’s conclusions you sure have no problem jumping to your own.

I don’t know what God is, and I don’t particularly have a preference nor a certainty. I just try to figure it out as best I can.

135

[QUOTE=Scylla]
Because some of the Bible are traceable to earlier stories that were adapted. We can read some of those earlier stories.

Some of the stories do not fit with things we know now to be true. We know the earth was not created as described in Genesis, in seven days. Contrary to your understanding that does not make it a lie, or made up. That was man’s best attempt at the time to describe his universe. Similarly, Isaac Newton did not lie or make up things when he described his physics simply because our understanding of physics has progressed since then. Newtonian physics are still valuable.

Thirdly, some of it is fairly obviously meant to be parable or morality play.

These problems are not unique to the Bible. They occur all the time. Even in modern times, you get four witnesses to an event and they will describe it in four different ways.

It’s not an either/or proposition either like you are trying to make it. In doing so you’re committing the fallacy of the excluded middle.
[/QUOTE]

I dont understand what your point is with the sentence about tracable stories?

Could you tell me what parts you think are parables or morality play? When I read the bible, I consider everything from exodus to chronicles to be intending to describe what actually happened.

Ok, I thought that you were one of those that said that God is good. I see now that you were not. So, sorry about that. I will note that if I believed in God, I would prefer him to be good rather than evil.

136

[QUOTE=Scylla]
Some of the stories do not fit with things we know now to be true. We know the earth was not created as described in Genesis, in seven days. Contrary to your understanding that does not make it a lie, or made up. That was man’s best attempt at the time to describe his universe. Similarly, Isaac Newton did not lie or make up things when he described his physics simply because our understanding of physics has progressed since then. Newtonian physics are still valuable..
[/QUOTE]

Not that this really matters, since it is just a discussion about words, but I would call the story of Genesis a “story”. If it is to be called science, like Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica, it should at least attempt to follow The Scientific method

137

[QUOTE=mr. jp]
Not that this really matters, since it is just a discussion about words, but I would call the story of Genesis a “story”. If it is to be called science, like Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica, it should at least attempt to follow The Scientific method
[/QUOTE]

You would also expect Principia Mathematica to be in accordance with relativity. It’s not because it predates it.

Similarly, Genesis does not follow scientific method because it predates it. In fact, Genesis is one of the building blocks upon which the scientific method is built, as it represents an attempt by man to understand his universe and why things are the way they are and how they came about.

Expecting Genesis to follow scientific method is an extremely bad argument, like expecting to find spark plugs on an ancient Sumerian horsecart and being surprised that there aren’t any.

138

[QUOTE=mr. jp]
I dont understand what your point is with the sentence about tracable stories?
[/quote]

Many biblical stories are not original. They are cribbed from other myths and religions.

It is all parables and morality plays.

We are looking at a book written over the span of thousands of years by multiple authors. Many stories predate literacy and are handed down by oral tradition. Each person telling a part of the story has altered it and made it his own and borrowed from other stories, myths and legends as he saw fit. These were then compiled and put together in basically an arbitrary system depending on who thought what should go in.

Seeing that this is verifiably true, one can hardly expect the book to be wholly internally consistent, and certainly one cannot expect it to be a literal factual documentary of events.

I think good applies to people not to God. God is beyond good and evil. Omnipotence and omniscience will do that to you, you know? It’s not easy being a supreme entity.

139

Oh, and if you are going to link to something, it behooves you to check and see if there is actually something there.

140

[QUOTE=Scylla]
Oh, and if you are going to link to something, it behooves you to check and see if there is actually something there.
[/QUOTE]

Right. I have no idea how that “%22” made its way into my link. Here’s the real one: The scientific method