What’s the RIGHT Planet?

Post Reply New Topic

What’s the right planet for an Aspie? I would say it would have to be a planet where stuff makes sense, where there is a truly qualitative difference between objects and people, other than their stupid egos, a place where you don’t have to worry about ulterior motives in every damned thing they say. The prime ingredient of such a planet would have to be justice.

If it had religions, it would still have many to choose from, but at least one of those religions would have a just God as its center. Not necessarily a loving God – but a just God. The religions of our present world don’t offer that. Okay, they all have some scripture verses that say or imply that their God is just. But they have far more scripture verses that imply the opposite.

So what can you do? You can play interpretation games and make scripture say what you want, or you can go pantheist and abandon logic, or you can chuck it all and go atheist. I’ve found all of those options unsatisfactory for one reason or another.

But I’ve figured out what to do about it:
1. Admit that scriptures say exactly what they say (and this after learning Greek & Hebrew).
2. Admit that I disagree with the parts I disagree with.
3. Willfully choose to bet my soul on a just and righteous God in spite of it all.

Now you might think that would be a stupid bet for a person who thinks all “holy” scriptures are full of crap. But what are the alternatives? I’ve pretty much tried all of them, and they all end up in nihilism – usually in a disguised form, but still ultimately nihilism. What’s so bad about nihilism? Only the possibility that it might be wrong. And if it’s wrong, and you bet on it, then you lose big-time.

Would a just God have created a planet like this? Probably not, but it’s possible if and only if that God makes full restitution in an afterlife. The bad guys would have to serve the good guys until the bad guys work off their debts, and the good guys use up their rewards. If people still have free-will, they would keep on doing bad stuff as well as good stuff, but less bad stuff after they see the results of it.

This forum is not the place to engineer a just universe, but I think it could be done. And I think it can be done by starting with this planet. What do you guys think?

Atheists don't "chuck it all". We don't believe in any Gods because there's no evidence or even a reason to suspect a God exists. There is no need nor such a thing as a God.

by "chuck it all" I meant chuck scripture and/or efforts to make sense of scripture, and to chuck the logical problems inherent in pantheism.

I didn't mean chucking logic.
Sorry that wasn't clear.

As someone who never was religious the whole business of religion has, from my childhood onwards, seemed an unnecessary addition to social life which petrified human relationships in a direction not always in the interests of reality or basic decency. But what has always disturbed me the most is religion's persistent orientation towards prejudicing humanity's position amongst all life as something not only special to humans (which would be understandable and acceptable) but to the fundamental operations of the total universe. It's obvious that humans have abilities that most other animals do not but the bulk of religions cast all other life as more or less created in the service of humans and divorces every other form of life from humanity in an extremely disparaging way which creates an unwarranted permission for humanity to treat all other forms of life without compassion. This I find not only inexcusable but life threatening to humanity itself since humanity is only one small portion of the interwoven network of life on this very fragile, very small and, in the light of the size of the universe, very insignificant planet.

I agree. And I would like to get around the term religion altogether, because it has such negative connotations. But when individuals speculate on a possible purpose for their existence, the efforts to answer that question result in the travesties and absurdities we now label religion. In its broad definition, even atheism is included.

Basically, I'm proposing that a just universe, or a just place in the universe is our only possibility of a life quality that is preferable to non-existence.

One must be careful about imposing human values on the indifferent operations of the basic forces of the universe. Justice is a very human value and the universe simply doesn't care. If humans want justice they must create it themselves.

On this planet, that's perfectly true. But this planet is terribly wrong, as I think we all agree. If this planet is all there is, I for one would prefer never to have experienced it. Therefore I choose to bet on a just afterlife. That includes all the necessary pre-requisites of a just afterlife.

Nobody can stop you from dreaming but there is no - absolutely none - indication of an afterlife at all.

There is nothing wrong with this planet. It is just that some of its residents have bad habits.

ruveyn

There is zero evidence either way. I'm not dreaming. I'm placing a bet, as are you by betting against it. Maybe we find out who's right. Maybe we don't.

Why is there a need for justification of existence beyond death? When a person dies, the brain is so overwhelmed that any normal logical perception is negated. Nothing of this world will make sense nor matter.

You are claiming to know something that can't possibly be known from an earthly perspective.

I'm not doing that. I'm simply placing a bet.

Actually the second last sentence implies that all cognitive functions fail and the last sentence just states that any understanding or awareness of the experience cannot be described.

The afterlife is subjective up to the point of no recognition.

For someone who gambles on what the afterlife is, one would hope this person is quite aware of the principles of gambling and it's effects.

That's as useful as saying there's no evidence either way in what happens to fruit as it begins to rot. Does the fruit suddenly some sort of new life, of course untestable or invisible to humans? Well considering there's no evidence either way, I think I'll have to go with the fruit suddenly gaining an afterlife. That's pretty logical, now isn't it? Face it, you're going to die, I'm going to die, we're all going to die eventually, now I don't see why that leads one to devote them self to a life spent largely preparing for the fantasy of which you created to comfort yourself with.

I agree with some here that "Just" is a term relative to the individual uttering it.

As to the original question, the 'right' planet by my definition is one where rational empiricism is the communication vehicle of choice - not the circular (lack of) logic and assumed givens that rules most conversations I see around me here on Earth.



-Jo