Is it normal i'm getting sick of accommodating other's beliefs?

Others have already explained the advantages of having a unified system of time measurement, (and, of course, you conveniently ignored them), but allow me to add a few more things for you not to consider while you cling to your irrational beliefs of non-conformism: First, some units of time ARE based on nature. A day is equal to the amount of time it takes for the Earth to complete one full rotation and a year is equal to the amount of time it takes for the Earth to complete one full orbit around the Sun (Months are also roughly related to the amount of time it takes for the Moon to go through all its phases). However, using only these two things to measure time would be extremely inefficient because not only are they are vastly different in length (thus making any measurement between the two difficult), but measuring less than one day would also be unnecessarily hard. For example, which is easier to say: "Meet me at 37 48ths of the way into the day", or "meet me at 6:30PM"? Or, "America declared Independence 185 days into that year 237 years ago" or "America declared independence on July 4th, 1776"? Thus, as with any other measurement system, it is further divided up into smaller and larger parts, hence why we have weeks and hours and centuries.
Now, why are days and months labelled? For the same reason, to make things easier for us. Months are cyclical (There are always twelve months each year), as are days with regards to weeks. Thus, it is easier for people, (particularly those that aren't so comfortable with numbers), to remember names instead of all these numbers, like "July 4" as opposed to "the fourth day of the seventh month." As well, having weekly cycles are convenient for scheduling purposes. Instead of working on "the second and fourth days of each week," one can say "I work Mondays and Wednesdays."
Now, you point out that these things are not "natural" and were just arbitrarily decided by humans to have some meaning to us when they hold no meaning by themselves: To that I say: So what? How does that fact in and of itself justify your "belief"? It doesn't discount anything that I've brought up here (about the convenience of smaller denominations and labels) nor things others have brought up (about convenience of having a unified time measurement system). So not only have you not addressed the pros that I and others have brought up, you have yet to provide even one rational reason for not using this system.
And before you say that your reasoning in and of itself is sound, consider this: If you don't "believe" in thing that aren't "natural" and were just given meanings by humans, why are you using words to communicate with me? They aren't natural, and they were only given meaning by humans. You called that circular object that other humans use to measure time a "clock". Why is it a "clock"? How did you decide that it was called a "clock"? And what if I decided it was a woozle-wozzle? And Bob over there decided it was a yabba-dabba doo? And everyone else had there own word for that object? It would probably be pretty damn difficult to communicate with others if we just rejected the "belief" that it was called a clock and came up with our own words to call it by, wouldn't you agree? Sure, I could could get by with using woozle-wozzle by just describing the object I meant whenever I used that word, but rather than acting like an immature little punk that thinks he's being a rebel by rejecting society's "belief" on what that object should be called while ignoring basic logic and common sense, wouldn't it be easier to just call it a clock?