• Zoolander@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months ago

    There’s no hypocrisy here.

    On one hand, the belief in a god doesn’t just end there. There are beliefs in what that god does and what he has control over. So it’s completely logical to believe that there’s no god (although, as someone else pointed out, it’s also not random arrangements of atoms).

    On the other hand, simulation theory is a logical theory to rationalize the “purpose” of why we exist. It’s not a belief. The simulation doesn’t respond to prayers or requests. It’s simply conjecture or hypothesis to explain the “why” of the universe. No one who talks about simulation theory (much less who “believes” in it) pretends that the creator of the simulation is uniquely interested in them and responds to their requests and tells them how to live their life. In fact, that would go against the entire concept of simulation theory.

    Religion and religious belief have specific definitions. This feels just as dishonest as people claiming that LGBTQ ideology is a religion or that evolution is a “belief”.

    • stonedemoman@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      I completely agree that’s what this basically boils down too. ST was an interesting concept I read about once and only briefly recalled twice since. Nothing more. This could be a valid criticism of individuals putting more stock into the idea but for anyone else it’s a reach.

      The belief system built around God affects me every single day of my life. I have family that are hardcore Christians that pester me about it regularly. Approximately half of the political ideologies being pushed in my country center around Christian dogma.

      Honorable mentions: Foreign and domestic terrorism threat and future wars being incited.

  • phoenixz@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months ago

    Could (a) god(s) exist? Possibly, it’s hard to rule out the supernatural in natural terms since it’s SUPERnatural

    Could the universe be a simulation? Possible too, but also on of those things that’s almost impossible to prove.

    At the same time, it could be that your e a Boltzmann brain, and that literally nothing existed before and that your brain just kinda formed together spontaneously with all your memories.

    All those are possible options that are over 99% likely to be false, but their cooouuullldd be true.

    Point is not to rearrange your life on the off changlce that one of those are true. Especially religion, since religions tend to be “believe our particular god(s) or you go to hell for eternity” followed closely by “if you don’t believe our particular god(s) we will help you go to hell right now”. Nearly all human conflicts in Earth’s history were either based on religion or used religion as a tool to whip up the masses to go kill the others.

    There are also hundreds of Gods and over 3000 different religious figures out there and they’re all pretty much exclusive or, they all claim to be the right one and the rest is wrong. Bold claim to make when it’s all based off goat herders texts that were first abused for a completely different god (hello, Christianity!) and constantly conflicts with each other.

    Simulation theory and Boltzman brain ideas are fun to entertain and talk and think about, but they’ve never been used to control who can love and have sex with who, they’ve never been a used whereas religion just IS abuse and control in every way possible.

    I do not like religion

    • ADTJ@feddit.uk
      cake
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      Agree with most of what you said except the “over 99% likely to be false”.

      Like you mentioned it’s not possible to prove either way so it isn’t meaningful to describe it as likely or unlikely. We have no way of knowing (at least currently) so the likelihood is simply undefined

      • stonedemoman@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        Eh, we can prove that human DNA is 99% primate and that there was no great flood. Seems unlikely to me.

        • ADTJ@feddit.uk
          cake
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          6 months ago

          It sounds like you’re referring specifically to Christian theology but the comment was just about whether a god or gods exist in general

            • ADTJ@feddit.uk
              cake
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              6 months ago

              We’re not talking about creationism or any particular brand of theism

                • ADTJ@feddit.uk
                  cake
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  6 months ago

                  I understand your point and I feel like maybe I’m sounding a little argumentative. Sorry let me try to be more clear.

                  I understand your argument is that genetic evidence disproves existing religious beliefs that people have but that’s a different argument to the point I was making.

                  Even if all global religions are incorrect, that doesn’t mean that a god or gods couldn’t hypothetically exist and my point is that there is no demonstrative proof of that either way.

                  If you check the original comment again, the question was about whether “a god(s) exist” and up until they mentioned the 99% that I was disputing, religion didn’t even come into it.

                  You could disprove every creationist claim, every anti-evolution argument, and you’d be right, but you can’t settle the question of “whether a supernatural being exists” because there simply isn’t a way to do that within the natural realm that we know of.

                  It isn’t just about God either. The simulation and Boltzmann brain hypotheses are similarly immeasurable