atheist paradox

[Lorizael]

But to be honest I think it's not a huge stretch to see commonalities between simulation people and more traditional religious believers. It's a relatively recent concept that the supernatural elements of a religion (god, heaven, etc.) are metaphysically distinct from the natural world. There's certainly a way to view the Greek gods as more or less playing a game with these creatures called humans that happen to also be in creation, and that doesn't seem soooo far removed from aliens/future humans/fifth-dimensional creatures mucking around with a simulated world. That is... simulation people today will say they're being totally scientific and rational and not appealing to anything divine... and maybe ancient polytheists had a similar attitude because there wasn't much concept of supernatural things being a wholly different phenomenon.

[pchang]

I'm not really familiar with "simulation", but I am curious. Does quantum mechanics play any part in justifying "simulation"?

[Lorizael]

It can.

https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/2012-02-29

[Jon Miller]

From a physics perspective that is the main reason people are interested in the idea.

JM

[Jon Miller]

Here are three blog posts that are probably more than 10% of the intelligent things I have read on the subject.

http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2013/02/the-simulation-hypothesis-and-other.html

http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2015/01/do-we-live-in-computer-simulation.html

http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2017/03/no-we-probably-dont-live-in-computer.html

I have heard other physicists discuss it also.

JM

[pchang]

So... the fact that the universe cannot divide by 0 is proof we are just part of a big simulation? Sorry, sounds like a bunch of recursive navel gazing.

[Aeson]

Of course we are in a simulation. One created by our mind to interpret signals from our senses.

[Jon Miller]

Physics wise I am uninterested in it (I don't see how it is important).

As someone who is interested in religions in the general sense, it is very interesting...

JM
(As far as atheistic religion goes, I also found Miles Kimball's blog posts interesting, maybe a good start is here https://blog.supplysideliberal.com/p...dless-religion )

[Kidlicious]

Of course we are in a simulation. One created by our mind to interpret signals from our senses.

I knew you people really understand Kant.

[Dry]

I'm not sure about what is the definition of atheism, or what need to be present for a belief to be called a religion, but here is why I call myself an atheist.

In the past, I called myself a christian, basically meaning I was "believing" in the sacrifice of Christ and as consequence, I was trying to follow his teaching.
For me, the "belief" in a god is demonstrated by how you live your life, how you make your decisions. Is your every day thought process guided by "What would Jesus do?", or "How can I make most money of this?", or "Will that advance my career? Fame?".
If I get the answers to most of my dilemmas from one of these questions, then I have identified a god.

After a long deconvertion process, I concluded that none of the man-made gods made sense. None of YVH, Jesus, Allah, Zeus or Vishnu could possibly be "true" gods.
If there was one true (good) god, it would be impossible to know her/his/its will for us. Therefore, without a clear user manual, the best way of action is to live your life the best you can tell.

I call myself an atheist today, not because I believe there is no god, but because the existence or inexistence of god(s) has become irrelevant to the way I live my life.
I don't ask myself "What would Jesus or the FSM do?" anymore.
Without thinking about the existence of a very improbable being who cares about me, I live my life the best I can, according to what looks like the closest concept of "good" I can think of.
In the worst case scenario: the existence of such a supreme being, if one day I have to face her/him/it, I know I won't be ashamed of any of my actions. And if that being is not pleased with what I did, like I drank or ate something he didn't like, or did something the wrong day, then so be it. I'd rather not spent eternity with that jerk.

So I say again: I am an atheist, because I don't care about the existence or inexistence of any supreme being. It has zero impact on my behavior.

[Kidlicious]

I'm not sure about what is the definition of atheism, or what need to be present for a belief to be called a religion, but here is why I call myself an atheist.

In the past, I called myself a christian, basically meaning I was "believing" in the sacrifice of Christ and as consequence, I was trying to follow his teaching.
For me, the "belief" in a god is demonstrated by how you live your life, how you make your decisions. Is your every day thought process guided by "What would Jesus do?", or "How can I make most money of this?", or "Will that advance my career? Fame?".
If I get the answers to most of my dilemmas from one of these questions, then I have identified a god.

After a long deconvertion process, I concluded that none of the man-made gods made sense. None of YVH, Jesus, Allah, Zeus or Vishnu could possibly be "true" gods.
If there was one true (good) god, it would be impossible to know her/his/its will for us. Therefore, without a clear user manual, the best way of action is to live your life the best you can tell.

I call myself an atheist today, not because I believe there is no god, but because the existence or inexistence of god(s) has become irrelevant to the way I live my life.
I don't ask myself "What would Jesus or the FSM do?" anymore.
Without thinking about the existence of a very improbable being who cares about me, I live my life the best I can, according to what looks like the closest concept of "good" I can think of.
In the worst case scenario: the existence of such a supreme being, if one day I have to face her/him/it, I know I won't be ashamed of any of my actions. And if that being is not pleased with what I did, like I drank or ate something he didn't like, or did something the wrong day, then so be it. I'd rather not spent eternity with that jerk.

So I say again: I am an atheist, because I don't care about the existence or inexistence of any supreme being. It has zero impact on my behavior.

I respect that you focus in the behaviour because that's very important to me as well. But, as you say, how do we really know what Jesus (God) would do? We don't. All we can do is the best we can, and then ask for forgiveness, knowing that we were always going to screw it up. But the good news is that Jesus loves the sick. He came for us when the world rejected us. We even rejected ourselves in truth. But Jesus always kept the faith.

[ricketyclik]

I'm not sure about what is the definition of atheism, or what need to be present for a belief to be called a religion, but here is why I call myself an atheist.

In the past, I called myself a christian, basically meaning I was "believing" in the sacrifice of Christ and as consequence, I was trying to follow his teaching.
For me, the "belief" in a god is demonstrated by how you live your life, how you make your decisions. Is your every day thought process guided by "What would Jesus do?", or "How can I make most money of this?", or "Will that advance my career? Fame?".
If I get the answers to most of my dilemmas from one of these questions, then I have identified a god.

After a long deconvertion process, I concluded that none of the man-made gods made sense. None of YVH, Jesus, Allah, Zeus or Vishnu could possibly be "true" gods.
If there was one true (good) god, it would be impossible to know her/his/its will for us. Therefore, without a clear user manual, the best way of action is to live your life the best you can tell.

I call myself an atheist today, not because I believe there is no god, but because the existence or inexistence of god(s) has become irrelevant to the way I live my life.
I don't ask myself "What would Jesus or the FSM do?" anymore.
Without thinking about the existence of a very improbable being who cares about me, I live my life the best I can, according to what looks like the closest concept of "good" I can think of.
In the worst case scenario: the existence of such a supreme being, if one day I have to face her/him/it, I know I won't be ashamed of any of my actions. And if that being is not pleased with what I did, like I drank or ate something he didn't like, or did something the wrong day, then so be it. I'd rather not spent eternity with that jerk.

So I say again: I am an atheist, because I don't care about the existence or inexistence of any supreme being. It has zero impact on my behavior.

You are an agnostic.

This doesn't follow from that statement.

I take my hat off to you if you aren't ashamed of any of your actions, and have no reason to be. I'm frequently ashamed. I use my shame to better myself. I think shame is a healthy emotion, like all of the emotions, if their message is listened to.

[I AM I AM MOBIUS]

HA$CS

[I AM I AM I AM MOBIUS]

tommr

[Elok]

But to be honest I think it's not a huge stretch to see commonalities between simulation people and more traditional religious believers. It's a relatively recent concept that the supernatural elements of a religion (god, heaven, etc.) are metaphysically distinct from the natural world. There's certainly a way to view the Greek gods as more or less playing a game with these creatures called humans that happen to also be in creation, and that doesn't seem soooo far removed from aliens/future humans/fifth-dimensional creatures mucking around with a simulated world. That is... simulation people today will say they're being totally scientific and rational and not appealing to anything divine... and maybe ancient polytheists had a similar attitude because there wasn't much concept of supernatural things being a wholly different phenomenon.

The (Western) Medievals had a definite conception of a natural order acting at God's command but distinct from God. It was understood that God was somewhere behind the primum mobile (sp?), but everything within it progressed according to rules. Those rules, as they understood them, were fanciful to the point of outright silliness, but they were still definitely fixed rules. Earth naturally wanted to sink below water, which sought its place below air, then fire, etc. And everything below the moon is just crap. Whereas the Greeks believed that impersonal nature had spawned the Gods, the same as it had created humans, and those gods lived within it.

Are those both broadly similar to simulation, in your view? I don't see where the distinction lies here. Modern people do tend to have a vague sense of God as sort of hand-flappingly "out there," but I'd say this is more a manifestation of the Enlightenment's attitude towards religion--as a weird opinion that properly has no relevance beyond the individual--than a change in what people really believe. That is, everyone has been trained to tacitly think of religion as intrinsically "unreal," and this manifests in what one Orthodox priest calls "the two-story universe," with us stuck down here and God wandering around a mostly empty upper floor.