What I would get rid of to improve life in the 21st century. For me I would like to get rid of religion to improve life in the 21st century. As we all know, most people think that religion is the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods. Religious people mostly worship or believe in an omnipotent and diving being, have faith in them, do whatever they were told by it; they too, believe in the concept of omni-beneficient, which means that God is all-good.
And now, in 21st century, the omnipresence of religion still can be seen anywhere. Religion had made war, and war had made monsters, scattered war around the world. Why do people believe in religion? Do they solace, save and strengthen us? Is being religious really a good thing? You can say yes because it was told that ‘God’ will always by your side, save you out of sorrow; no, because religion misdirect people.
To me I think that religion might be just a psychological belief and it is not necessarily needed – a childish superstition.
A lot of the readers might be utterly disagree with me by the time they read this article, they will think that this is absurd, ridiculous or ludicrous; I don’t care about the other religious people as this is an opinion of mine. Religions indoctrinate people, telling them to have faith into whatever they said, creating chaos, turmoil, and war. Statistic showed that 86% of the people in the world are religious; if a ‘holy’ religion war takes place it would mean that people around the world would get affected and imagine that, there are 7 billion people in this world.
I seem to be engrossed by this forbidden of religion topic. I am an atheist myself and I personally do not hate religion in a particular way; it’s just that I chose not to believe in it even though that my parents are religious. I think that if religion doesn’t exist, we, human being, would have a much better scientific development. Why is that? You might ask. Some religions deny important and well proven pieces of science, for instance the dinosaurs.
Religious evidence for example, Bible written that Adam and Eve are the first living on earth and they believe that when God created the Earth he used material from some other worlds he had created, and which means that dinosaurs’ remain just happen to be in soil and rocks from the other world. To me that is just asinine, for the fact that it is not actually scientifically proved and they believe it just because someone who claims to be able to interpret ‘God’s’ asserted it and despite of the fact that they even know it was once written by a human.
Without religions, there would be less rationalized bigotry in the world but instead, more equality to humanity. Religion has always debated alongside with science and it is argumentative and cantankerous. It would not be difficult to come to an agreement as to what we understand by science. Science is the century-old endeavour to bring together by means of systematic thought the perceptible phenomena of this world into as thoroughgoing an association as possible. To put it boldly, it is the attempt at the posterior reconstruction of existence by the process of conceptualization.
But when asking myself what religion is I cannot think of the answer so easily. And even after finding an answer which may satisfy me at this particular moment, I still remain convinced that I can never under any circumstances bring together, even to a slight extent, the thoughts of all those who have given this question serious consideration. To me incredibly religion seems to possess the ultimate trustworthiness somehow that a lot of people in the world were enthralled and postulate about it, magically giving trust and faith to people, starting a pandemonium debate. Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. “This was a quote from a theoretical physicist Albert Einstein, asserting that even though the realms of religion and science in them are clearly marked off from each other, nevertheless there exists between the two strong reciprocal relationships and dependencies. Though religion may be that which determines the goal, it has, nevertheless, learned from science, in the broadest sense, what means will contribute to the attainment of the goals it has set up.
But science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. Accordingly, a religious person is devout in the sense that he has no doubt of the significance and loftiness of those super personal objects and goals which neither require nor are capable of rational foundation. They exist with the same necessity and matter-of-factness as he himself. In this sense religion is the age-old endeavour of mankind to become clearly and completely conscious of these values and goals and constantly to strengthen and extend their effect.
If one conceives of religion and science according to these definitions then a conflict between them appears impossible. For science can only ascertain what is, but not what should be, and outside of its domain value judgments of all kinds remain necessary. Religion, on the other hand, deals only with evaluations of human thought and action: it cannot justifiably speak of facts and relationships between facts. According to this interpretation the well-known conflicts between religion and science in the past must all be ascribed to a misapprehension of the situation which has been described.
I strongly believe that people should believe in what they believe they should believe in but not believe in what people believe just because of their belief that you have to believe in. Religions’ beliefs could be evilly persuasive and credulous as in making people to believe into it. People especially children are gullible enough to be convince no matter what you told them is true or false. Some children might grow up in a religious family, and it’s an obvious matter of fact that eventually they will be religious when they grown up, but not everyone in the world is in the case. 0% of the people in the world who grew up from a religious family became religious too themselves and there are 7 billion of people in the world and imagine that… A famous theoretical physicist Steven Weinberg once quoted: ‘Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion’. The point of this quote is, the system of the universe of how human being act is always the same, but to alter it, religion is the key; key to persuade people turning unbelievable things into factual.
If a religion transforms to a blind belief, it will be just a brainwashing, and it miss understanding or misusing will be lethal. A person who is religiously enlightened appears to me to be one who has, to the best of his ability, liberated himself from the fetters of his selfish desires and is preoccupied with thoughts, feelings, and aspirations to which he clings because of their super-personal-value. But if someone was enlightened but they are doing stuff in a wrong way just because their religion told them to, then they would be consider as fanatics, or perhaps, extremist. I do think thoroughly and this is the best word to address them.
Yes. Extremist. Extremist was known as someone who holds extreme or fanatical political or religious views, esp. one who resorts to or advocates extreme action. For example, a person will value ‘holiness’ of some nonexistent being over other peoples’ and their own life. For an example of an example, a conflict arises with Christians and the all the Muslim fanatic suicide bomber had their bomb ready for massacre when a religious community insists on the absolute truthfulness of all statements recorded in the Quran. The question that seems important to me is that does the absolute truthfulness that they postulate about really that important?
Is it that important that it will takes over a hundred, thousand or even ten thousand’s people life to find the truth and postulate the debate? I think the main focus of people should be on humanity and living together as humans, instead of on something up high in the sky (or wherever it may be) of which we don’t know whether it exists or not; religion also slows down innovation and free thoughts. Think about all the homosexual and bisexual peoples around the world, couldn’t live they life they would like and get discriminate by, because of the rules of some kind of religion.
Without religion cruel historic event such as the holocaust would not exist because it happens when a dictator of a country were about to extinct the whole religion just when his thoughts were preoccupied by selfishness, hatred and jealousy. I would not assure that a world without religion will be extremely peaceful; man will still fight for other various reason bases on their desire, hatred and bigotry. But if religion is just an excuse for man to fight even more, why don’t they ban it to save the sorrow humanity? Now ask yourself, where is the love?
Cite this What I Would Get Rid of to Improve Life in the 21st Century
What I Would Get Rid of to Improve Life in the 21st Century. (2016, Sep 27). Retrieved from https://graduateway.com/what-i-would-get-rid-of-to-improve-life-in-the-21st-century/