Does anybody think about belief instead of blind worship??

Question

So far rubbish.

Why cant people think for themselves?

Answer 1

Lot of mumbo jumbo the lot of it, mankind has not moved on a lot from worshipping volcanoes in my opinion.

Me Um make um big spiteful God in the sky angry if me um say this, ungowa!

Answer 2

Blind worship? How do you mean?

Do you have an attitude problem? Only you seem very abrasive and rude, saying the reply's are rubbish. Why ask a question if you are then not "receptive" to the range and variety of responses you are likely to get?

I don't think your question if very clear anyway. What does belief have to do with worship anyway? Are you talking about "organised" religion?

Belief in or of what?
People worship all sorts of things....

If you want "better" replys try writing "better" questions mate!

Answer 3

Faith could be said to be blind worship and no proof is the non believers argument for there beliefs.

I didn't worship but from experiences i have been blessed with Belief which still requires a dash of faith.

Is ignorance really bliss or is it dangerous?

Answer 4

Those who blindly worship are actually too afraid or are intellectually incapable of thinking for themselves. While others may pour scorn on such fragile people, it's not their fault if they've been threatened with hell & damnation from early childhood - it's like being brainwashed. Some choose in later life to devote themselves unquestioningly to a particular religion etc., and these are often running away from unhappy life experiences.

In one sense though, most people in countries like the UK are guilty of "blind worship"; how many kids beg their parents for the latest brand-name trainers etc.? Isn't our society generally suffering from a mass-worship of money & power?

Answer 5

Indeed I do - every day. Blind worship is easy. Belief, on the other hand, is very difficult.

If only there could be just a teeny tiny bit of proof.....

Answer 6

I do. As a christian, I whole heartedly believe in God, the power of Christ, God's word, etc. However, I do not want to blindly believe in untruth. So, I take part in some research of an evolutionary nature. I do try to understand the meaning of what I read, but I have to say that, while some of it makes a certain amount of sense particularly from a certain point of view, much of it seems incomplete and occasionally incoherent.

for instance, Richard Dawkins attempts to prove that there almost certainly is no God by, in part, describing the Anthopic principle, planetary version. In conclusion, he says on page 169 of THE GOD DELUSION: "We live on a planet that is friendly to our kind of life, and we have seen two reasons why this is so. One reason is that life has evolved to flourish in the conditions provided by the planet. This is because of natural selection. (Richard Dawkins appears to be saying here that the reason why we are living on Earth is the reason why we are living on Earth. This may not be what he means to say, but it is one way in which his chosen words can be interpreted.)

The paragraph goes on to describe the other reason: "...the anthropic one. There are billions of planets in the universe, and, however small the minority of evolution-friendly planets may be, our planet necessarily has to be one of them." (Richard Dawkins appears to be saying that there must be many other evolutionary planets in the universe because ours is one of them. You would have to already believe in evolution to believe that evolution must be in force on other planets. This is circular arguing and is best described as ineffective.)

This paragraph appears to be one of the least effectively argued in the book so far. We should expect that Richard Dawkins, who has built his career an reputation on evolutionary ideas, would have been able to develope a more coherent argument. It's not even as though he has limited space with which to present his argument, such as would be the case in a magazine article. He could choose any combination of tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of words. Why did he limit himself with the particular words which he finally chose? i suspect that, at the very least, evolution has not been proven to the degree that it's promoters would like, but they have to work with what they've got. From a completely neutral point of view, no one, no matter how eloquent or experienced, can use their own words to bring a non existent God into existence or put an existing God out of existence.

I suppose it's possible that the remainder of the book might be more persuasive. If evolution is true, and I am worshipping a lie, I hope so. However, based on the presentation so far, I doubt it.

Answer 7

Belief is blind worship.
Blind worship is belief.
What you need is Faith based on Wisdom.
Everything else is just smoke and mirrors.

Answer 8

Belief will set you free, worship will blind you.

But what do I know I can't see a darn thing with these old specs on.....

Answer 9

I think about belief rather than blind worship ... I also think about chocolate rich tea biscuits rather than chocolate digestives, full cup rather than balcony and super unleaded rather than plain unleaded too ... what was the point of your question...?

Answer 10

Belief is always blind. That is why it is called 'belief'. e.g. instead of saying "It is going to rain tomorrow" you say "I believe it is going to rain to tomorrow". Both of the above are examples of belief - but the former is arrogant enough to believe itself to be knowledge.

Most of the time when we think we 'know' something to be true - we actually just 'believe' it to be true.