Why? Because Job had some sovereign rights superior to God? What kind of god would that be? If it's too much to ask you to be a believer, can you not at least concede the theoretical point of Job -- that God, being perfectly justified in his absolute sovereignty, has has no need of human approval?
Ah yes.... The old "God is the definer of morality, and therefore is not subject to it" trick.
Sort of a "do as I say, not as I do" thing on God's part.
That's pretty convenient.
THAT is precisely the sticking point most Atheists and Agnostics choke on. They don't want to allow for the fact that there is a Sovereign God who has not only the ability, but the RIGHT to hold man accountable for his actions, because in so acknowledging, they de-throne themselves from absolute mastery of their own destiny. They cannot accept that in God's eyes, they are flawed, imperfect, and unsuited to be in God's presence, or to even approach Him in their own natural state.
It does no good to quote scripture to one who doesn't believe scripture. That which, for the Christian, answers the question, does not do so for the unbeliever, for he does not accept the validity of the scripture. Without a common frame of reference, neither side can agree, because they have no common ground on which to build. Unbelievers, Atheists, and Agnostics rely on their own observations, their own conceptions, and their own abiltites to discern, decide, and draw conclusions about God. They invariably mold and fashion a God of their own conception, one who behaves (or doesn't behave) according to what they think He should do or not do. They accept no authority outside of themselves, or those who they have deemed knowledgeable in accordance with their own definiton and conception of knowledge. Their belief system (or lack of one) is turned inward on itself as a closed loop, with no outside interaction accepted or wanted. They convice themselves that they are right, because they feel that they are, judging by the self-consistency of their system. The flaw in it is that it is based upon a god who does not exist as they have conceived him. if God did exist as they have conceived Him, then they would be right. The flaw is in the perception of God, who He is, and His Sovereignty. As I said before, God is not what we conceive Him to be, He is what He reveals Himself to be, and the one true religion would be the one who starts with that as it's First Premise, and aligns itself with what God reveals Himself to be, no matter how it may differ from what they think He ought to be, or wish He was.