Anxious Unpredictable Manipulative Netherless Only

As expected, I already know what my research topic was on. Primely describe it as a part of education, just gives me a path to study on this topic. As disconcern as well as deluded, people often give different opinion and respond on this topic. Despite of how SENSITIVE it is,

that urge me to further set my foot on this doscovery of so called "faith".

The definition of sensitivity itself arise as people tend to go very different on each other, for most it acts as a fragile code in our mind (not mine though xD ),

presumably a well debate on hell will send you to hell, which is quite interesting to check it out.

And because of that, this sensitivity arises debates of the pros and cons. The fact that it arises varying outcomes make this subject debatable,

WHICH GONNA WORK PERFECTLY FINE AS A RESEARCH TOPIC.



Who the hell gonna talk about " A dog is a dog" when the fact already showed that that's a dog?



For such research topic, It works well with both primary founding or secondary founding. As this subject is still hot on the pan, information can be gathered through interviews and surveys. For secondary reference and foundings, I am on my way into gathering all sorts of masterpiece, which includes 7books from the library and 12 books from dad's bookshelf.



The fact that most people feel that religion is somehow unquestionable is undeed a misinterpretation of understanding it and going against it. Education plays an important role to guide people "the way to think", not " the way to follow". This is proven when people are questioned on the origin of religion. The dilema of theory is a subject that arise due to this confusion. Does Theory arise from foundings or does foundings arise from theory?

Is a good example to explain this situation. As the same mind-block, before converting your thoughts, you should ask yourself about religion:

" Does it exist because I believe it? or I believe it because it exists? "



It may take quite a moment to understand the glitch in this statement.

Splitting it up, " Does it exist because I believe it?" tells the fact that human try to interpret a subject at his own belief. He will try to rationalise things to meet his hypothesis, as he believes it.



The second component is "I believe it because it exists?" explains things to be proven due to scientific procedure. The logic of its existence is rational, that's why human try to adapt to the understanding of this phenomena.

A simple example, Gravity. People try to adapt themselve to something pulling them downwards ( not to hell. lol ). This phenomena is there, theory is introduced to explain this phenomena, not because the theory is there that's why gravity exists.

That's why, science at the other hand, speaks of relative truth. As theories must keep
re-improvise whenever a new idea/phenomena clashes with the existing theory.

whenever the new fouding conflicts with the existing theory, the procedure loops back into

Getting an idea ---> experimenting



If result is positive, Improve theory

If result is negative, start back into getting an idea.



Analysing the both situations, it can be concluded that "Because I believe in this theory, it proves existence" is a way how all (or most) religion works to be. that's to stick to the idea.



Whereas, " Because it exists, and the founded theory complies with this phenomena, that's why i apply this theory" is a way how human study a subject with scientific procedures. Things have relative binaries. Which often proves that absolute truth doesn't comply most of the time.



The fundamental criteria of education is to teach, to guide, to nurture "the way to think" to others, not the way to follow rigidly.

Hence, religion cannot act as a component to educate people, as it somehows forms a barrier of "stick to it" for the followers, which restricts any improvement or correction on current theories.

Having moral education established concurrently with religion is a fraud understanding of how people interpret these two seperate entities. This scenario is so obvious to deny non-believers.

" No religion = No moral = Go hell" End of story.



This is how people use to understand Moral and religion. As they feel, Moral and religion are twins, or would say so that Moral arise from religion whatsoever.



They say " have faith", ways of life are obtained through faith, which is dadadada....

I wouldn't be able to clarify or "challenge" this thought if I wasn't on an exchange program to beijing last year.

My expereince In beijing, having a caring and loving host family in beijing prove to me, self-enlightening is possible in the absence of a faith-lord. I attended school, studied moral, studied Social civilian educations. China is a communist country, for people who doesn't understand communism will have the first thought of:

" pouring shit on holy places, killing innocent peoples, raping etc etc"

That's normal, blame part of our educaton, this is called Bias- history.

People do act on their own will without knowing that others generalises them as a group.
But that goes the same to religious groups. Al-Qaeeda : " It's god's will"
The Israel PM assasin " I acted on god's word" And the religious wars during Roman Ages.
But do you see them killing each other everyday? ( lets say today)



FOr the same in china, I see none. I see civillisation just as same as other country. What we learn in moral class, Is just the same, without (Kepercayaan kepada Tuhan). Yes, Belief in God.



This is something hard to adapt with, for believers. But on my daily experience in such
"god-less" society, I feel its more or less with ours. The proportionality of Citizen and crime rate doesn't draw a conclusion that [people get misguided without god], its a matter of morality. A matter of how you educate your people to do good.



A famous quote:

" Brother, cant you see the birds on the sky?
They dont need a religion,
They can see. "



My observation of such society made me question

" Can a civillisation of morality be formed without the guidance of faith? "

I prefer to take this subject into further exploration, rather than being bias to a side. But to form a thesis, I have to take sides.

Truth are relatively changing, which demands enhancement and improvement, which explains why we will stop at a stage if we trap ourselves in a death knot of fear.



" For those that believe in heaven, will never know the truth,
as they are blinded by Fear"