[extropy-chat] Atheism in Decline

[Samantha Atkins]

On Mar 14, 2005, at 4:53 PM, Dan Clemmensen wrote:

> Samantha Atkins wrote:
>
>>
>> I still don't see how this (likely being in a sim) makes any such 
>> difference.  There are too many possible sim scenarios that do not 
>> support any notion of a god much less one near that of most theists.  
>> So precisely how does this follow?
>>
>> I can and have construct sim-inclusive arguments that do do a 
>> reasonable job of supporting a God but not one very similar at all to 
>> what most theist claim.  So even having done some number of 
>> iterations of such speculative theology I still don't see where 
>> you/we get the benefit you are suggesting.
>>
> I'm very confused, as usual. Is there any detectable difference 
> between living in a sim and living in a universe constructed or 
> controlled by "God?"  "God" is simply another name for "sysop."

That depends on what aspects you are looking at.  There could be 
accidental sims, school project sims, sims with the creator[s] poking 
their noses in or not, sims where the creators felt compassion toward 
any intelligent beings within the sim or not and so on.  The sim may or 
may not be "controlled".   The creator[s] may or may not still be 
around and interested in the sim.  Thus it is a big jump from 
considering being in a sim likely to extrapolating what that means re 
notions of God and such.

>
> Different religions use different names for god and ascribe different 
> qualities to their particular god. It should be possible to create a 
> list of attributes that are ascribed to gods by each religion (sect, 
> faith, or other theist grouping) and then ask each religion to declare 
> for each attribute whether or not it applies to their god. those who 
> think we live in a sim can agree or disagree that each attribute 
> describes the sim environment/sysop.

This would be a pointless speculative exercise  but interesting/amusing 
as such exercises go.

>
> For each religion there is a corresponding simulation environment.

If you wish.

>
> This reductionist approach applies only to religions that agree that 
> at least some attributes of their god are "public knowledge." That is 
> that at least some attributes of the god can be described reliably in 
> words.

it is fairly certain that present humans are unable to understand much 
about significantly advanced intelligences.  Ineluctability may be a 
simple statement of fact.


>
> For myself, each of these descriptions of my universe falls into one 
> three categories:
>    1) inconsistent
>    2) consistent but  contradicted by observation of the universe
>    3) consistent but no contradicted buy observation of the universe.
>
> I reject 1 and 2. Of all religions in category 3, only one is unique: 
> That is the one in which there is no unobservable attributes. For any 
> religion that ascribes unobservable attributes to god, I can construct 
> an infinity of additional religions by adding additional unobservable 
> attributes.
>
> I choose to "believe: in the one unique "religion." I am an atheist.
>

Nice for you.  However, ti is quite possible to lack sufficient 
intelligence or knowledge to grasp that what appears inconsistent is 
not necessarily inconsistent at all.   On (2) it is difficult to get a 
contradiction within a sim for the possibility of being in a sim.  
there are many religions and religious sects that either have no 
theistic component or assign no particular attributes to God.

- samantha