What makes a deity worthy of worship?

[Jainarayan]

As I'm journeying further on the Paganism road, I'm learning that all deities are worthy of worship by someone, not unlike what @Quintessence said. I think it's a matter of whom you are drawn to. I'm drawn to pretty much the entire Norse pantheon, lock, stock and barrel. Though I don't always pray to all of them, other than praise and thanks during rituals, unless I need their special talents. then I'll focus on one god(dess). Someone elsewhere said that if their cat was sick, they would make an offering to Bastet, even though she is not in the person's pantheon; I would pray to Freyja for my cat. I'm drawn to a few of the Hindu deities, four to be precise, but not at all to deities of other pantheons. Not because they're less worthy of worship but because they don't resonate with me. All deities are worthy of worship, but again, as @Quintessence said, you can't pray to all of them. I think keeping in mind that they are all sacred and divine is pleasing to them, whether you know them or not.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

What makes a deity worthy of worship? Or not worthy of worship?

That sparked some interesting questions in mind there for a second, better write them before I forget them. Very interesting, so in order to answer that question you might have to actually think vicariously about the ontology of deities. First thing that comes to mind is their seeming need to display wrath, and apparently issue threats. To appear strong, to wield hammers and lightning and make a prophet write disgustingly about the metaphorical treading of grapes. To me such gods don't seem worthy of our attention, trying to bully us psychologically with inspired words, trying to convince us that they need to be worshiped or else. Sounds as if they are aspiring to some form of despotism, but for some reason it is not enough for them to just use their power to do it, but that they have this burning need to actually persuade us that it is for the best. How odd.

 

[Cephus]

Being factually real. Since there is no evidence that *ANY* gods are factually real, I'd argue that none of them are worthy of worship.

 

[Quintessence]

Being factually real. Since there is no evidence that *ANY* gods are factually real, I'd argue that none of them are worthy of worship.

Then you have a poor or limited understanding of what gods are. You do realize that the gods of polytheistic theologies are essentially mythopoetic renditions of various aspects of "factual reality" right? Or maybe you truly mean to claim that reality isn't real. Which would be odd, but what the hey. Extreme skepticism does exist. *shrug*

 

[Erebus]

Being factually real. Since there is no evidence that *ANY* gods are factually real, I'd argue that none of them are worthy of worship.

What do you consider to be the requirements for something to be factually real?
More importantly, why do you believe that this makes a thing inherently more valuable than something that isn't factually real?

 

[Gnostic Seeker]

I don't. I was just focusing on that one aspect of God.

I'm sorry. I may have mistaken what you were saying, but I thought it seemed like you were conflating God and good.

 

[Gnostic Seeker]

How does one tell a deity from something that is not a deity?

I like the idea that deity is that which makes all things sacred, and is what we mean by a kind of ground of sacredness. The gods are sacred just because they are, and they teach things are sacred.

 

[Gnostic Seeker]

Being factually real. Since there is no evidence that *ANY* gods are factually real, I'd argue that none of them are worthy of worship.

How do you know the gods aren't real? If we didn't know the particles of which all things are made were real, we wouldn't know it. I'd suggest the gods are the metaphysical embodiments of things in the physical.

 

[McBell]

How do you know the gods aren't real? If we didn't know the particles of which all things are made were real, we wouldn't know it. I'd suggest the gods are the metaphysical embodiments of things in the physical.

You should pay more attention to the post you reply to...
He flat out stated:

"Since there is no evidence that *ANY* gods are factually real"​

Now me personally, I disagree with that statement.
I would phrase it as:

"There is no convincing evidence..."​

or perhaps:

"There is no empirical evidence..."​

Or perhaps:

"There is no objective evidence..."​

Or most likely:

"There is no objective empirical evidence..."​

 

[McBell]

The gods are sacred just because they are...

I for one do not give them a free pass.

 

[Gnostic Seeker]

Now me personally, I disagree with that statement.
I would phrase it as:

"There is no convincing evidence..."​

or perhaps:

"There is no empirical evidence..."​

Or perhaps:

"There is no objective evidence..."​

Or most likely:

"There is no objective empirical evidence..."​

A: Convincing is often in the eye of the beholder.
B: How could there be empirical evidence, when empirical deals strictly in the physical?
C: See A, and also define objective/standard of objectivity
D: See B and C

 

[Gnostic Seeker]

I for one do not give them a free pass.

To each their own

 

[McBell]

A: Convincing is often in the eye of the beholder.

That is the point.
I have not had any evidence presented to me that convinces me god exists.

B: How could there be empirical evidence, when empirical deals strictly in the physical?

I have no fear of imaginary things.

C: See A, and also define objective/standard of objectivity
D: See B and C

Evidence that is not emotionally driven .
Evidence that is not hinged upon wishful thinking.

 

[Cephus]

Then you have a poor or limited understanding of what gods are. You do realize that the gods of polytheistic theologies are essentially mythopoetic renditions of various aspects of "factual reality" right? Or maybe you truly mean to claim that reality isn't real. Which would be odd, but what the hey. Extreme skepticism does exist. *shrug*

Yes, but most people wouldn't consider those gods. Yes, I know that there are those who would, but in the sense that most people consider gods, supernatural, intelligent, creative entities that violate natural law, those simply aren't. Many ancient religions simply personified natural events as a means of comprehending them. A sun god that rides across the sky isn't proven correct by there actually being a sun. A volcano god isn't proven correct simply because there are volcanoes. These gods go far beyond the natural events that trigger them. The sun gods weren't limited to simply being a burning ball of nuclear fire in the sky, there were all kinds of magical powers imbued on these gods that simply don't exist. People believed that sacrificing virgins to volcano gods would keep the lava from burning their homes, they believed that ripping out the hearts of their enemies would make the crops grow and the rains fall. They were just wrong.

 

[Cephus]

What do you consider to be the requirements for something to be factually real?
More importantly, why do you believe that this makes a thing inherently more valuable than something that isn't factually real?

Believing a lie, acting on a falsehood, no matter how positive the results, is still a falsehood. The end does not justify the means. You're welcome to disagree, I'd have to see a rational argument how bad beliefs actually produce better results than just dealing with reality.

 

[Cephus]

How do you know the gods aren't real? If we didn't know the particles of which all things are made were real, we wouldn't know it. I'd suggest the gods are the metaphysical embodiments of things in the physical.

How do you know they are? Where is your objective, testable evidence? Any god for which such evidence doesn't exist isn't worth believing in. Rational people only accept things for which there is evidence. Irrational people do not. Being irrational is nothing to be proud of.

 

[Gnostic Seeker]

How do you know they are? Where is your objective, testable evidence? Any god for which such evidence doesn't exist isn't worth believing in. Rational people only accept things for which there is evidence. Irrational people do not. Being irrational is nothing to be proud of.

My experiences are objective enough for me, but thanks for your concern

 

[Cephus]

My experiences are objective enough for me, but thanks for your concern

By definition, your experiences are subjective. You ought to realize that.

 

[Quintessence]

Believing a lie, acting on a falsehood, no matter how positive the results, is still a falsehood. The end does not justify the means. You're welcome to disagree, I'd have to see a rational argument how bad beliefs actually produce better results than just dealing with reality.

What do you think of sci-fi conventions? Complete rubbish and waste of time, right, since they're not dealing with "reality" as you see it? They're all believing in lies and acting on falsehoods! We should burn all the imaginative things! BURN ALL THE THINGS!!!!!!

 

[Cephus]

What do you think of sci-fi conventions? Complete rubbish and waste of time, right, since they're not dealing with "reality" as you see it? They're all believing in lies and acting on falsehoods! We should burn all the imaginative things! BURN ALL THE THINGS!!!!!!

But those people, by and large, don't think that those things are real, it's all for entertainment purposes. They don't believe any of it is true. It's a wholly different thing.