I don't think you got the point at all.
First of all, it's not a matter of caring. It's a matter of scale. The universe is 13.5 billion years old. We existed for maybe 100K of that. The universe includes hundreds of billions of galaxies. We occupy a microscopic spec of one.
It's not all about us.
Second, why is your god so insecure that he even wants, never mind needs, our worship and love? The Islamo-Christian view of God is a deeply insecure but powerful being that can create a universe but needs validation from comparitively microscopic beings. It's kind of touching in a strange way but not believable. I can understand why a religion would create a god like this but not why God would actually be like this.
Third, there's no reason to believe in this personal god. Stories of miracles are either not proven to be true or proven not to be true. We live in a natural universe governed by predictable laws and best understood by science and reason. Theists come up with all manner of excuses for this. Catholics say it's "free will". Some Protestants say "mysterious ways". Muslims often say "it's a test". Occam's Razor says it's exactly what it looks like: the reason there doesn't seem to be a personal god is because there is not a personal god.
Fourth, if God WERE to create a religion, there would be one (1) religion, one (1) holy book and that holy book, authored by the Creator, would contain knowledge, wisdom and morality that would astound people even today. This holy book would have been published all over the world, even before these cultures had any contact with each other. Instead, we see different religions with different holy books as they arise from different cultures and the only way they spread is by human efforts.
The "morality" of these religions focus on the "evils" of victimless crimes such as blasphemy, apostasy and idolatry while exhalting useless "virtues" such as rituals and adherence to dietary taboos. Since human morality has progressed since the authoring of these books, the values often seem barbaric and backward to modern sensibilities.
Fifth, the absence of a true religion does not create a meaningless or amoral existence. We are community animals and we have a sense of empathy and conscience for one another. We form civilizations and make laws that help to alleviate conflict and suffering. We don't always get it right but we're getting better. Barbaric practices that used to be commonplace, such as slavery or wars of aggression, once sacred, then defended, then debated, are now condemned by civilized society and we're seeking to eliminate them. We are not just evolving biologically but also morally and intellectually.
Building upon the foundation that we are given, seeking in our own small way to make the universe a little better than when we found it, is purpose enough.
First of all, it's not a matter of caring. It's a matter of scale. The universe is 13.5 billion years old. We existed for maybe 100K of that. The universe includes hundreds of billions of galaxies. We occupy a microscopic spec of one.
It's not all about us.
Second, why is your god so insecure that he even wants, never mind needs, our worship and love? The Islamo-Christian view of God is a deeply insecure but powerful being that can create a universe but needs validation from comparitively microscopic beings. It's kind of touching in a strange way but not believable. I can understand why a religion would create a god like this but not why God would actually be like this.
Third, there's no reason to believe in this personal god. Stories of miracles are either not proven to be true or proven not to be true. We live in a natural universe governed by predictable laws and best understood by science and reason. Theists come up with all manner of excuses for this. Catholics say it's "free will". Some Protestants say "mysterious ways". Muslims often say "it's a test". Occam's Razor says it's exactly what it looks like: the reason there doesn't seem to be a personal god is because there is not a personal god.
Fourth, if God WERE to create a religion, there would be one (1) religion, one (1) holy book and that holy book, authored by the Creator, would contain knowledge, wisdom and morality that would astound people even today. This holy book would have been published all over the world, even before these cultures had any contact with each other. Instead, we see different religions with different holy books as they arise from different cultures and the only way they spread is by human efforts.
The "morality" of these religions focus on the "evils" of victimless crimes such as blasphemy, apostasy and idolatry while exhalting useless "virtues" such as rituals and adherence to dietary taboos. Since human morality has progressed since the authoring of these books, the values often seem barbaric and backward to modern sensibilities.
Fifth, the absence of a true religion does not create a meaningless or amoral existence. We are community animals and we have a sense of empathy and conscience for one another. We form civilizations and make laws that help to alleviate conflict and suffering. We don't always get it right but we're getting better. Barbaric practices that used to be commonplace, such as slavery or wars of aggression, once sacred, then defended, then debated, are now condemned by civilized society and we're seeking to eliminate them. We are not just evolving biologically but also morally and intellectually.
Building upon the foundation that we are given, seeking in our own small way to make the universe a little better than when we found it, is purpose enough.
Atheist Forums Hall of Shame:
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
