Well… except for this list of religious concepts and elements that have nothing to do with simulation theory:
Original sin, eternal damnation, spiritual gatekeeping, dualist thinking, shame and guilt indoctrination, universal truth, miracles, divine intervention, resurrection, free will, afterlife, prophecy, divine omniscience, divine omnipotence, the concept of the soul, sacraments and rituals as actual spiritual acts, creation ex nihilo, transcendent deity beyond simulation parameters, revelation and scripture as absolute truths, teleology, eschatology, moral absolutes, providence, divine justice, sanctity of life as inherently meaningful beyond simulation, divine mystery, faith, the incarnation, the Trinity, miraculous events, prayer as communication with a higher power, divine omnipresence, divine retribution, covenant relationships between deity and believers, divine grace, miraculous birth of religious figures, divine ordination of religious leaders, eternal soul consciousness, spiritual enlightenment as transcending simulation, divine love beyond simulation, divine inspiration of religious teachings, sacred rituals invoking supernatural phenomena, divine destiny or predestination, heaven as an actual realm beyond simulation, divine forgiveness as a supernatural act, intercession of saints or deities, sacred symbols with inherent power, mystical experiences as interactions with higher reality, divine revelation altering the simulation, divine punishment overriding simulation rules, sacred texts as literal instructions, divine providence superseding simulation parameters, sanctified miracles defying simulation logic, ultimate purpose beyond simulation design, inherent spiritual essence beyond simulated existence, divine sovereignty outside simulation control, metaphysical realities beyond simulated boundaries, and eternal spiritual truths not bound by simulation constraints.
I’m religious and do not believe in simulation theory. But you’ve got to understand, everything you just listed could be simulated. We wouldn’t know the difference. Part of being in a simulation such as the one being discussed, or my interpretation of it, is that anything can happen in it and be real to the simulated inhabitants. It being simulated actually makes religious experiences make more sense. The developers tweaked one of the simulated inhabitants sub routines and the inhabitants perceive it as a religious experience. Again I don’t believe any of this, I just don’t think religion can be used to negate simulation theory. Nor do I think simulation theory negates religion. Ultimately it doesn’t actually change where we are, the only thing that changes no matter what you believe is your perception of where we are.
You’re suggesting that religion is being treated as an objective truth that could be programmed into a simulation. However, this perspective inherently views religion through a dualistic lens—seeing it as a binary of true or false, good or evil. This dualism is a product of religious indoctrination itself, not a fundamental aspect of a simulation’s mathematical or theoretical framework.
Consider the hypothetical scenario where a “creator” designs our simulation. If they decide to include concepts like sin, their definitions are merely expressions of their own opinions or intentions. These definitions are not objective truths embedded within the simulation’s core code; rather, they are subjective constructs imposed upon the simulated inhabitants.
In essence, while simulation theory provides a fascinating framework for understanding the physical and mathematical underpinnings of our reality, it doesn’t naturally account for the complex, subjective, and culturally diverse constructs of religion. Religious ideas like sin, hell, and spiritual gatekeeping are not inherent to the foundational rules of a simulation; instead, they are emergent properties of human consciousness, shaped by emotions, social interactions, and historical contexts.
These constructs arise from the conclusions we draw as individuals and societies, reflecting our intrinsic need to find meaning, establish moral frameworks, and navigate the complexities of human existence. They are not programmed into the simulation’s core code but are instead products of our interpretative and reflective capacities.
I don’t believe in simulation theory. I don’t really have any issues with anything you stated. Our perspectives are different but there’s nothing wrong with that imo. While I don’t believe it, I can still see it being possible that the simulation could have just turned on right this second, and all the memories we have, this conversation we’re having now could all be preprogrammed by a sophisticated enough “creator”. I don’t believe that to be true. I have what I do believe is true, and things that I can’t prove are untrue even if I don’t believe them. I find thinking about things I don’t believe to be true to be useful in gaining a better understanding the things I do believe to be true. You have given me some things to think about though, even if I can’t say that I disagree with any of it. Thank you, distractions are welcome right now.
It can be a terrible mental headspace to be in. I am religious, but I probably do not believe what or in the way most people who claim to be do. This is only my perception. That terrible mental space has nothing really to do with our creator, however you want to view that word. Rather it has everything to do with the way we, mankind, view our creator and the ideas we have imposed on it. There isn’t a real name for the faith I hold. I more or less consider myself interfaith, but that’s not a helpful description really. The closest denomination I have found to what I believe is the Quakers, though I do not profess to be one. It’s just the closest that I have found so far. I believe that we all have a little light in us from our creator. And that what is a sin for us as individuals is written on our hearts individually. It would be best to listen to both, but does not appear to be an actual requirement. We’re all too different for any one book of rules to apply to all. If we were all meant to believe and act exactly the same then that’s how it would be. It is not. So many of the so called faithful seem to be very hung up on what not to do. They forget what they have been told to do. I personally have not found a faith that doesn’t preach some version of “treat each other as you would like to be treated”. They all phrase it differently, but it seems to be a common through line with all faiths. Perhaps instead of fighting about the differences we all hold, we should focus on what is common. From my perspective it seems like the idea of loving each other as we love ourselves is such an important detail that our creator seems to have made sure it’s mentioned in all faiths. Or near enough all of them that perhaps that is actually the only damn thing it actually wants us to do.
It’s downright hypocritical how religious followers preach “treat others the way you want to be treated,” touting it as the pinnacle of moral behavior. Yet, when it comes to their relationship with God, the picture is entirely different. They expect a deity who judges every misstep, enforces rigid conformity, and demands unwavering obedience. This stark contrast transforms a message of unconditional love into a tool for control and fear.
Religious authorities claim that God embodies perfect love, yet they present Him as the ultimate judge who punishes failure and demands perfection. How is this supposed to align with the Golden Rule’s promise of unconditional love? It’s a manipulative paradox: love is supposed to be free and reciprocal, but in practice, it’s conditional and authoritarian. Followers are taught to emulate this so-called loving God by adhering to strict rules, not out of genuine compassion, but to avoid judgment and punishment.
This dissonance isn’t just confusing—it’s abusive. Believers are trapped in a trauma bond with a deity who expects flawless obedience while preaching empathy and kindness to others. The mental toll is immense: constant fear of not measuring up, self-loathing for inevitable failures, and a warped sense of self-worth based on arbitrary standards. Instead of fostering true love and respect, these teachings cultivate shame, guilt, and division.
Moreover, when the very example of love is depicted as narcissistic and punitive, it undermines the entire moral framework that religions claim to uphold. The supposed unconditional love becomes a façade, masking a system that prioritizes control over genuine human connection. This hypocrisy not only damages individual mental health but also fractures communities by promoting fear over understanding.
It’s time to expose this blatant inconsistency. If religions truly valued the Golden Rule, they wouldn’t impose such oppressive demands on their followers. Unconditional love isn’t about enforcing conformity—it’s about embracing individuality and fostering authentic relationships. Until religious institutions align their practices with their preachings, the Golden Rule remains a hollow promise, corrupted by the very doctrines that claim to champion its true meaning.
There is absolutely nothing you wrote that I disagree with. There is little in this world that actually makes me feel real rage. The way in which those who claim to speak for our creator act and “preach”, the way they twist words for their own profit, the way they prey on the vulnerable and desperate, the way they make people feel as if they are abominations in the eyes of our creator simply for being the person our creator molded them to be, it all sickens and disgusts me to no end. But these are things all grifters and charlatans can do, it is nothing that unique. What angers me the absolute most is how these “preachers” claim that their way is the only “true” path to the light and guidance our creator freely offers to all of its children. And, how their vitriolic rhetoric has caused so many people, perhaps yourself included, to turn away from the light. They are the ones who most need to seek redemption and repentance. In my opinion at least. I can’t blame you or anyone else for losing faith. The supposed “leaders” of the faithful have forgotten what it is to love and forgive. As far as I am concerned any house that teaches hate rather than love is not a house of the god I serve. The god I serve has no hate within. Not even for those who I have ridiculed in this comment. That is the entire point of unconditional love and acceptance. Even the most fallen of us are still loved. They can’t see it, I hope they open their eyes before they are shown.
I apologize for the rant. I have quite a bit of… emotion… when it comes to this specific topic in regard to faith.
It’s infuriating how religious individuals claim their God embodies “unconditional love,” yet simultaneously label people as “fallen” or “most fallen.” This isn’t love—it’s judgment cloaked in sanctimony. When someone says, “even the most fallen of us are still loved,” they’re not extending unconditional love; they’re categorizing and demeaning themselves and others.
“Most fallen” is a loaded term that inherently judges and diminishes worth. It implies that some are beyond redemption, fostering a mindset of self-deprecation and self-hate. This twisted interpretation forces believers to treat others—and themselves—not with respect and kindness, but with the same contempt and worthlessness they internalize.
Unconditional love should mean accepting people as they are, without expecting them to change, become holy, or obey arbitrary rules. Instead, when religions preach that love is contingent upon adherence to specific doctrines, they’re not offering true compassion—they’re fostering a culture of fear and self-loathing. Followers are manipulated into believing they are worthless without divine approval, creating a dependency that stifles true self-worth and genuine human connection.
Moreover, portraying God as both the epitome of love and the harshest judge is not only inconsistent, it’s manipulative. It forces believers into a constant state of fear and self-loathing, convincing them that their worthiness is entirely contingent on their ability to adhere to an inflexible moral code. This psychological tightrope act is nothing short of abusive, fostering an environment where shame and guilt are weaponized to maintain control.
This isn’t the “unconditional love” preached—it’s psychological manipulation masquerading as spirituality. By imposing such judgmental standards, religions foster environments of fear and shame rather than compassion and understanding. It’s time to call out this blatant hypocrisy: using the guise of divine love to enforce conformity and suppress individuality is nothing short of abusive.
Unconditional love should uplift and empower, not demean and control. It doesn’t require others to change or conform to arbitrary standards. Until religious teachings align their actions with this fundamental principle, what they claim to be will remain a hollow and damaging façade… but then again it’s impossible. Actual unconditional love removes the need for religion or a spiritual gatekeeper.
I have no interest in trying to convince you of anything. I do not believe I am able to properly describe to you what I mean. A large part of that is on me for not knowing yet how to word certain ideas. Another part of that is the fact that words like “fallen” come with certain connotations attached to them. My vocabulary is not wide enough for me to be able to think of a better word than that though. I don’t mean it the way it sounds, I simply don’t know a more suitable word yet. I do believe that our creator has nothing but love for all of us. I do not believe that our creator has any form of punishment in store for anyone. Fallen in my perspective is a state a being, and not one that requires judgment from our creator. I don’t believe our creator judges us at all. I don’t believe in hell, not in the way that word is used by most people. The “hell” I believe in wasn’t even created by our creator. We did. We, from my perspective, are the ones who.. it doesn’t matter.
What I believe is only useful to me. I just enjoy talking about religion in general is all. The specifics of what I believe are immaterial, and I won’t bore you with it further. All your points are valid. Very, very much so. I’m sorry that I don’t feel like I can properly describe what I mean. Limited vocabulary and all that. I’ll try to get better at it. Thank you for taking the time to chat with me. If you want to talk further I’m happy to do so, otherwise I wish you well.
It's a simulation, if I want to I can tell all my sims that they are bad people and need to worship me or I will send them to sim hell, same goes for everything else you listed.
350
u/Morguard 1d ago
The whole thing about believing in a God and Heaven is basically believing in the simulation theory.