Atheists

[Lerxst]

Life is hard to be agnostic, i was agnostic and everytime i think about god i keep asking the same question over and over... (Is god watching me ?) I always HATED that question cause im not free do do what i want to do with girls you know what i mean ? You say yes, you say no.... you go with yes and no... you get very confused, you dont know wich religion to choose, you get fair that maybe someone is watching you and paranoid start from there.

I do not worry about being watched or not, I try to live the best life I can. If there turns out to be a diety that doesn't like it, screw him.

They know that the bible is wrong and they are not sure to believe in science.

Who are "they"? Agnostics? An agnostic is just as confident in science as any atheist. This has nothing to do with science at all.

I too was raised in a religious environment - a stifling, toxic cult, the Jehovah's Witnesses, to be more exact - my initial flight to atheism was quick and joyful. I feel that I went from one end of the spectrum to the other, and only now am I settling into a more moderate position where I can look at things with a more even perspective. I have to ask myself: was I fair in rejecting theism so completely? - was it because of the fact that I was raised in such a hateful, fundamentalist environment? So I've been reading on this for the past several years - I read theists - not fire-and-brimstone pulp but the theists considered to be the highest intellects - Swinburne and C.S. Lewis for example. I read atheists. I read agnostics. And I'm still in the process of figuring out what I believe in.

 

[EmptyForceOfChi]

Yeah but why was he being rude. This was the first time I he posted to me. I mean you can't say someone is dumb because he follow a religion. Intelligence is not measured by religion.

because you insulted his religion by having a different view to him .

people who have set belief systems are just like there religious counterparts. weather they beleive in god is irrelevent, they still go by a set of beliefs about the unknown,

to an athiest a religious person is stupid because they believe ina book written thousands of years ago, wich holds no real proof, or any scientific evidence, religious people are cultists, they pay money to somebody and pay for an afterlife. (i dont actually believe organized religion is a good thing if you give any money away)

but i respect everyones beliefs, we have no real understanding of the universe, we are humans, we dont really know how it all started, or if it had a creator, neither science or religion will ever tell us what created the universe, it will remain an infinite inigma for future generations to ponder over, just llike we still ponder now, and how our grandfathers and there grandfathers before them wondered about the universe.


i place my beliefs not in science, not in religion, but in life itself, i understand it s a question that cannot be answered, (but its fun philosophising about)
you see muslim many athiests believe science is there god, and some believe it will make them immortal, so they place there trust inw hatever the fad is at the time period to make you immortal. (everyone wants to live longer) and science is making way for people to prolong there life, so people put trust into it, and then think science has the answeres on everything including what happened billions of years ago in the creation of the universe. athiests are alot like religious people when you break it down,


i dont class myself as anything personally. but you could call me daoist if you had to class me, (but i dont like sticking people in catagorys it leads to stereotyping)


but yes muslim many athiests are rude, there is a deep seeded fear of death to many people who dont believe in god, and subconsciously it can make them very bitter people deep down. i believe most peoples behaviour problems and attitude/rudeness problems, comes from early childhood life and traumor, and a deep seeded fear o death that effects there entire life subconsciously. (personal opinion).


anyways yes bieng polite and kind is important to me, i try to make people around me happy its the least i can do for bieng given life.



peace.

 

[Varda]

Varda:

So you say. But everyone here knows that you were insulting atheists. You have an agenda, and don't bother trying to deny it.

Please don't play dumb. You know that you were rude and condescending.

i am not playing dumb, i am apologising... it is up to you to acept my apology or not

"atheists have a tendency to attack people for some reason"

"i guess atheists are just happy that there's no hell so that they're free to treat everyone like shit"

No, those above statements aren't offensive... right?

Let's try this one...

"I guess Christians are just happy that as long as they worship God, they will always get into heaven. So they are free to treat everyone like shit."

Offended yet?

i could not be offended by that, as i am not a christian. if i was a christian, or if the post was about agnostics, i'd probably make a joke about it and move on...

when i say atheists like to attack people, i refer to my personal experience speaking to atheists, which was clearly shown on my first post on this subject... but i already rest my case on that

Ahh, I see. But earlier on, you touted your opinion as fact. You said:
"what i mean is that when it comes to discussing religion, atheists have a tendency to attack people for some reason"

You DIDN'T say, 'The atheists I HAVE MET have had a tendency to attack people when discussing religion'. You implied that ALL atheists have a tendency to attack people, which is a load of crock. I called you on it, and now you're pretending that you have been 'misinterpreted'. Your bigoted statement is available for all to see. There will be no backpeddling for you, dear girl.

see sentence above

Too late. Apologizing with the mere intent of projecting the appearance of an angelic attitude is tired and lame. You MEANT to offend with your comments. Your comments WERE bigoted, and false generalizations. Now that you've been caught with your pants down, you're backpeddling. Next time, think twice before talking such nonsense.

i'm a nice girl mountainhare... how could you be so sure of that if you have never spoken to me before? anyway, that is also up to you... i will not cry if you were so terribly offended by me that you cant acept my apology and will never speak to me again... but i hope that you do

Ahh, see! Right after giving a half-hearted apology, you attempt to demonize atheists. Apologize, and then attack immediately after. Have a guess at how much credibility your apology has now... NONE.

i was talking about your offensive comments towards me... im not demonizing atheists, im just saying that you are a terrible example of cordiality

Quite simply, I couldn't give a shit what you think. People like you cannot have their minds changed. You act rudely, condescendingly, and aggressively. And when your 'opponent' (he/she is your opponent because you have made him one) acts defensively, you cry YOU'RE ATTACKING ME! TYPICAL ATHEIST!'

well... that's your opinion... my opinion is a lot different... quite frankly, i don't care alot about your opinion either... maybe in the future that will change

You need to realize 2 things.

1. One atheist does not represent the entire 'community'. Atheists are not drones, they don't have the same beliefs, and are often arguing with each other about such issues as abortion, gay marriage, secularism, etc.

i would not have come in this thread ad made that comment if i had been treated rudely by one or two atheists... my experience is of dozens, perhaps over a hundred, which for 1 person i think is good enough... also, i used words such as "aparently" "seems" "tendency" which are intended to imply how non rigid this is... i know pretty cool atheists... they exist, it's true!

2. Placing the blame for an atheist's hostility ONLY on the atheist is wrong-headed. It often takes two to tango. Perhaps you should approach atheists with a little more respect, and then you will likewise be treated with respect.

this little interchange of ours could have taken a completely different course if you were more like one of these few level headed atheists that are around... in fact, you are the only person im arguing with in this thread... i dont know how many of the others are atheists, but except you things seem to be alright here... maybe you shouldnt get all sweaty over so little... do some yoga... fishing?

obs: it might have gone over your head that i use a lot of humour... especialy in that last sentence, please dont take it seriously

 

[spuriousmonkey]

what i mean is that when it comes to discussing religion, atheists have a tendency to attack people for some reason
i don't know what it is about this subject that makes atheists so heated up... believers too, i guess... there difference there is just that insulting god to them must be like insulting a dear father or something

i guess atheists are just happy that there's no hell so that they're free to treat everyone like shit

I think it is more that religious people act righteous and therefore deserve to be treated like shit. If they are true believers they shouldn't care. Because we definitely do not treat everyone like shit. If you would talk rationally with me about religion I wouldn't say anything harsh or bad. But if you take the high stance be prepared to be thrown at with excrement.

Hope that explains things.

da monki

 

[qwerty mob]

That makes some sense to me.

It is what Thomas Huxley said... iirc, he said "method" but for our purposes that is interchangeable with process; the essence is that agnosticism is not meant to be a final position, but a transitional one. On the surface it seems that *any* transitional position is justified, even *every* transitional point, but therein lies the problem of infinite regress. What's wrong with it? Well it can be reasoned that there are at least two circumstances where it can occur, and lead directly to misunderstanding, or indirectly to avoiding understanding:

(1) endless deferrals of what actually (or objectively) explains an explanadum

(2) any contradiction which arises but is inseparable from the transition

We see the first problem (1) of infinite regress more easily with "beliefs" (that as a means of aquiring knowledge, beliefs tend to lead to further beliefs, rather than understanding); I propose that agnosticism is a means of postponing adopting a position pendng selective review of the evidence which (and I'll come back to later- where you are right about "sets", and we both agree-) describes the sets of things we know, and do not know, crossed with that which one can only guess is knowable or unknowable, rather than ascertain deductively.

(2) Is the old "agnosticism refuting itself" proposition, but I consider it to be a strawman, generally, because it applies only to narrower arguments, such as "there is no best means of acquiring knowledge" and the "fixed position" position (better known as the "fence sitter" position) of seeking a synthesis between two extreme propositions. E.G.- One can't really be "agnostic that no square-circles exist."

Let me stop here, and get your feedback so far; I'm hoping to avoid "monster posts" and acheive cleaner, smaller points. For the record, there are specific propositions which I am agnostic on (such as the Xtian "Jesus" being historical or not), so I'm not about to paint agnosticism as worthless or incorrect, just "easily misunderstood" on three key points, the first of which was "method not creed" and the second that there are two risks of applying this process over-genrally (we've started discussing infinite regress, and I'll clarify intellectual selectivity later on).

All the Best

 

[Lerxst]

We see the first problem (1) of infinite regress more easily with "beliefs" (that as a means of aquiring knowledge, beliefs tend to lead to further beliefs, rather than understanding); I propose that agnosticism is a means of postponing adopting a position pendng selective review of the evidence which (and I'll come back to later- where you are right about "sets", and we both agree-) describes the sets of things we know, and do not know, crossed with that which one can only guess is knowable or unknowable, rather than ascertain deductively.

You lost me. Maybe it has just been a long day...

Agnosticism is a means of postponing adopting a position. Ok. I'm confused after that.

Let me stop here, and get your feedback so far; I'm hoping to avoid "monster posts" and acheive cleaner, smaller points. For the record, there are specific propositions which I am agnostic on (such as the Xtian "Jesus" being historical or not), so I'm not about to paint agnosticism as worthless or incorrect, just "easily misunderstood" on three key points, the first of which was "method not creed" and the second that there are two risks of applying this process over-genrally (we've started discussing infinite regress, and I'll clarify intellectual selectivity later on).

I'm also agnostic on the existence of ETI. This is something that almost everyone who has thought about it agrees on. We don't have any evidence for ETI, but it is certainly conceivable given the size of the known universe that it is out there. All we can honestly say is that there is no evidence, but that this absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. And there are plausability arguments. Now if clear positive evidence for ETI turns up tomorrow, the agnosticism ends. But if it never turns up, it will tough for the agnosticism to end until every cubic mile of the universe has been accounted for. Will that ever happen? Probably not. So I can never imagine "we know there is no life but that on earth" being a statement I would accept - at least in my lifetime.

 

[Cris]

Lerxst,

Do you see any difference between agnosticism and weak atheism? I don't think there is one and I suspect the term agnostic is prefered by its proponents because it does not carry the same implied negative bagage that the term atheist attracts. In this sense I would see agnosticsm as simply dishonest atheism.

 

[Lerxst]

Lerxst,

Do you see any difference between agnosticism and weak atheism? I don't think there is one and I suspect the term agnostic is prefered by its proponents because it does not carry the same implied negative bagage that the term atheist attracts. In this sense I would see agnosticsm as simply dishonest atheism.

Cris:

A fair question. My answer is no. A weak atheist sees no evidence for God and chooses not to believe as the default position. A weak atheist would think the god question is entirely decideable in principle and the evidence strongly favors the atheist side. Myself, I think that we simply cannot know if there is a god or not. I'd venture that most atheists will disagree with that statement. And that is really what sets us apart, I think. From there one can branch off into being either an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist, in the sense of practice. I am one of the former in the sense that I have no positive belief in any god, and I don't pray or go to church. The latter is more like fideism.

But if someone asks me what I am, I won't say that I am an "agnostic atheist" because it would involve so much explaining. I say I am an agnostic and I leave it at that. If they want to know more, I will tell them more. I'll tell them that I have no positive beliefs.

Is that dishonest? I don't think so, but maybe. I will admit that it is much easier to answer "agnostic" than it is to answer "atheist" when queried. Much, much easier. But the way I see it, my beliefs are private. And asking someone about their religious views is like asking about their sex life. If I ask someone about either, I don't expect all the details to come pouring out. I expect tactful answers. The better I know someone, the more detail I will provide on the religious ideas (or lack thereof) that I hold.

Of course this is a messageboard, where I am essentially anonymous, so I will bare all here (on religion, not my sex life ).

 

[(Q)]

Myself, I think that we simply cannot know if there is a god or not. I'd venture that most atheists will disagree with that statement.
But if someone asks me what I am, I won't say that I am an "agnostic atheist" because it would involve so much explaining. I say I am an agnostic and I leave it at that. If they want to know more, I will tell them more. I'll tell them that I have no positive beliefs.

Is that dishonest?

No, but why not simply replace the word god for any other supernatural or imaginary being? Would you still think the same way?

In other words, theists claim gods exist, as well as angels, spirits, demons and other such things. They make these claims, yet there is nothing to show their claims have any credibility whatsoever.

So, in much the same way, I can claim there is an invisible pink dragon living in my attic. Of course, he is invisible, so its not likely I could come to the conclusion he is pink, yet theists will tell you many things about their gods, again with nothing credible to show.

And, in much the same way, could you know state that there is no way we can ever know, or not know, if in fact an invisible pink dragon lives in my attic? Could you now apply the exact same logic as you do with claims of gods existence?

 

[Ophiolite]

I am agnostic on the issue of pink, attic oriented dragons. I am devoutly agnostic on the matter of Gods.

 

[qwerty mob]

I apologize for the delay, Lerxst. I'm just "popping in" for a moment now...

...

Ophio- is there a clear or simplistic reason one should be any more agnostic about propositions of deities than other mythical beasts? A relative difference in their alleged powers perhaps?

...

Cris' question was a good one, I intend to think about that one some more. I'm sure it ties in with why one should be any more, or less, agnostic about certain propositions (Q's Pink attic dragon, Sagan's Green garage dragon, e.g.), but I'm finding it difficult to understand these degrees of weak and devout at the moment. I'll try not to take it in so literally. Cheers

 

[Lerxst]

So now we reach the inevitable discussion that always arises when an atheist and an agnostic have a dialogue, namely, the atheist saying: "If you are agnostic about god, you must be agnostic about any old arbitrary thing I can dream up."

No, but why not simply replace the word god for any other supernatural or imaginary being? Would you still think the same way?

I think that various proposed "supernatural" beings have less credibility than others.

In other words, theists claim gods exist, as well as angels, spirits, demons and other such things. They make these claims, yet there is nothing to show their claims have any credibility whatsoever.

Correction: Some theists believe in those things. Some just believe in god. Martin Gardner has spent a lifetime uncovering paranormal hoaxes and frauds, championing skepticism and science, and yet he believes in god sans all the devils and succubi and wine-into-water and whatnot.

I agree that there is really no credibility for angles, demons, etc... Why? Because by common definition, these are beings that are supposed to have certain traits and perform certain actions. There isn't any evidence for said traits and actions. The degree to which you say that a particular supernatural thing has certain traits is the extent to which it's existence can be checked. Part of the definition of Zeus is that he resides on Olympus. Well, we can go look for him there, and if there isn't any evidence that he is there or was there, then that is a big strike against that particular proposed entity.

So, in much the same way, I can claim there is an invisible pink dragon living in my attic. Of course, he is invisible, so its not likely I could come to the conclusion he is pink, yet theists will tell you many things about their gods, again with nothing credible to show.

First: I agree that many theists have proposed all sorts of qualities for their god that cannot be defended. I shall not attempt to defend them.

Second: What bothers me about your analogy is that it is contrived and intentionally incoherent. You are proposing something that has physical qualities that have referents in the known physical universe (pinkness) and then contradicting them by saying it is invisible. Yes, I know what you are trying to do, you know that traditional definitions of god are usually similarly incoherent. But it doesn't exclude a possible being that is not captured by those definitions.

And, in much the same way, could you know state that there is no way we can ever know, or not know, if in fact an invisible pink dragon lives in my attic? Could you now apply the exact same logic as you do with claims of gods existence?

The big difference is that there are conceptions of something 'god-like' that I find considerably more plausible than your contrived dragon. I see it as a case of apples and oranges. I don't think analogical arguments hold much water in such cases. That is really the crux of the matter for me, and the reason why these "invisible pink dragon" or unicorn or whatever just don't persuade me.

I consider the likelihood of said dragon existing so ridiculously infinitesimal that it warrants no further consideration. I have no reason to think that it is anything other than a contrived, silly example on your part. If I thought that all possible conceptions of something god-like were similarly unlikely, I'd spend no more time considering them either, and I'd call myself an atheist.

 

[Ophiolite]

IOphio- is there a clear or simplistic reason one should be any more agnostic about propositions of deities than other mythical beasts? A relative difference in their alleged powers perhaps?

Exactly so. The consequences of incorrectly assessing the existence of pink dragons appear to be dramatically different from incorrectly assessing the existence of God(s).

 

[(Q)]

So now we reach the inevitable discussion that always arises when an atheist and an agnostic have a dialogue, namely, the atheist saying: "If you are agnostic about god, you must be agnostic about any old arbitrary thing I can dream up."

I think that various proposed "supernatural" beings have less credibility than others.

Fair enough, which supernatural beings have any credibility?

Correction: Some theists believe in those things. Some just believe in god. Martin Gardner has spent a lifetime uncovering paranormal hoaxes and frauds, championing skepticism and science, and yet he believes in god sans all the devils and succubi and wine-into-water and whatnot.

Martin Gardner's philosophy may be summarised as follows: There is nothing supernatural, and nothing in human reason or visible in the world to compel people to believe in God. The mystery of existence is enchanting, but a belief in The Old One comes from faith without evidence. However, with faith and prayer people can find greater happiness than without. If there is an afterlife, the loving Old One is real. [To an atheist] "the universe is the most exquisite masterpiece ever constructed by nobody", from G. K. Chesterton, is one of Martin's favorite quotes.

I agree that there is really no credibility for angles, demons, etc... Why? Because by common definition, these are beings that are supposed to have certain traits and perform certain actions. There isn't any evidence for said traits and actions. The degree to which you say that a particular supernatural thing has certain traits is the extent to which it's existence can be checked. Part of the definition of Zeus is that he resides on Olympus. Well, we can go look for him there, and if there isn't any evidence that he is there or was there, then that is a big strike against that particular proposed entity.

Good point. Yet, theists will claim god is in everything and is everywhere, yet nothing shows us that in nature.

Second: What bothers me about your analogy is that it is contrived and intentionally incoherent. You are proposing something that has physical qualities that have referents in the known physical universe (pinkness) and then contradicting them by saying it is invisible. Yes, I know what you are trying to do, you know that traditional definitions of god are usually similarly incoherent. But it doesn't exclude a possible being that is not captured by those definitions.

Not just incoherent, but contradictory, hypocritical, illogical, irrational... much like pinkness with invisibility.

The big difference is that there are conceptions of something 'god-like' that I find considerably more plausible than your contrived dragon. I see it as a case of apples and oranges. I don't think analogical arguments hold much water in such cases. That is really the crux of the matter for me, and the reason why these "invisible pink dragon" or unicorn or whatever just don't persuade me.

Yet, you just admitted that my reasoning was based on the physical, while theists reasoning are based on the supernatural, and then go on to say theists claims are more plausible?

I consider the likelihood of said dragon existing so ridiculously infinitesimal that it warrants no further consideration. I have no reason to think that it is anything other than a contrived, silly example on your part. If I thought that all possible conceptions of something god-like were similarly unlikely, I'd spend no more time considering them either, and I'd call myself an atheist.

Of course it is a contrived silly example. But it is less sillier than that contrived by theists, since I can clearly demonstrate my definitions are based on the physical realm.

Could science create a dragon? Possibly, through advanced DNA manipulation. Could science make the dragon pink, sure, why not? Could it make it invisible? Perhaps, if we apply technologies associated with stealth and the bending of light.

Warrants no further consideration, you say? Gods are more plausible?

 

[TheDesigner]

Funny, being an agnostic (or lapsed Catholic...same thing) I still find myself praying, especially during heavy turbulence. But it comes from a learned comfort reaction - not from absolute belief (or sudden "foxhole" belief.)

Intellectually I know that I am simply praying to myself. But as to the difference of being an agnostic and an atheist, to me being agnostic is the most logical position, because I CANNOT know the true nature of the universe. Perhaps it was designed, and we - the designed can never know any better. When humans can design a being "in their own image" that can learn and think and procreate, and place it in a "universe" and apply the ol' prime directive - those beings will only know what they KNOW and invent the rest - religion and atheism and everything in between.

I don't need a book to have a moral code, though, I may have learned it through cultural osmosis - but I don't nead fear to keep me honest.

<A HREF="http://www.designerspeaks.com">"You can always ask Him yourself"</A>

 

[(Q)]

When humans can design a being "in their own image" that can learn and think and procreate, and place it in a "universe" and apply the ol' prime directive - those beings will only know what they KNOW and invent the rest - religion and atheism and everything in between.

Perhaps, but they would eventually figure out something isn't quite right, especially when they discover the "Patent Pending" stamps on the bottoms of their feet and the "Made on Earth" stickers on their foreheads.

 

[Ophiolite]

Perhaps, but they would eventually figure out something isn't quite right, especially when they discover the "Patent Pending" stamps on the bottoms of their feet and the "Made on Earth" stickers on their foreheads.

Now you know what all that junk DNA is about.

 

[Lerxst]

Fair enough, which supernatural beings have any credibility?

Two possible examples come to mind:

(1) Beings that create and run sophisticated enough simulations that include virtual sentient beings. Relative to the simulated beingsm the simulators would have essentially 'god-like' powers. But they would still be finite beings themselves, and certainly not "all-good" or omnipotent in the usual sense of the word. And according to the Simulation Argument as formulated by Oxford philosopher Nick Bostrom, there is a non-zero probablity we are living in such a simulation ourselves. And unless the simulators choose to inform us of this fact, there is really know way to know if we are in such a simulation or not. It is a variant on the old "brain-in-a-vat" scenario or Descarte's Demon who controls your mind. The difference here is that there is a physically plausible path - you don't need a "demon."

(2) Something along the lines of the Omego Point Theory by physicist Frank Tipler. In a nutshell, humans will eventually create/become "god." His book The Physics of Immortality describes this. The scientific basis for his theory has come under fire, but if nothing else there is at least a plausibility scenario to get to a god and an afterlife that doesn't involve anything 'supernatural' per se. Future physical/cosmological discoveries might lead to other ways to achieve this, beyond what Tipler has imagined. I haven't a clue.

Martin Gardner's philosophy may be summarised as follows: There is nothing supernatural, and nothing in human reason or visible in the world to compel people to believe in God. The mystery of existence is enchanting, but a belief in The Old One comes from faith without evidence. However, with faith and prayer people can find greater happiness than without. If there is an afterlife, the loving Old One is real. [To an atheist] "the universe is the most exquisite masterpiece ever constructed by nobody", from G. K. Chesterton, is one of Martin's favorite quotes.

That is a nice summary of Gardner's fideism. Do you think it is justified? Or is he an idiot for holding such ideas?

Yet, you just admitted that my reasoning was based on the physical, while theists reasoning are based on the supernatural, and then go on to say theists claims are more plausible?

But you are using physical properties that are essentailly contradictory, and that is why I don't like your example. Something cannot be pink (relfecting a particular subset of wavelengths) and invisible (reflecting no wavelengths of light at all) at the same time.

Could science create a dragon? Possibly, through advanced DNA manipulation. Could science make the dragon pink, sure, why not? Could it make it invisible? Perhaps, if we apply technologies associated with stealth and the bending of light. Warrants no further consideration, you say? Gods are more plausible?

Sure, all those steps could be taken, at least in principle, but I say at least today that it warrants no further consideration because I highly doubt that science has taken the trouble to create said dragon. And I still disagree that it can be pink and invisible at the same time.

On the other hand, the idea that we exist in a simulated universe to me is plausible. I'm not saying that I know this is the case. I'm not even saying that I think it is likely. But it is logically possible. And again, there is no way I could know either way. So why should I pretend that I somehow "know" it isn't the case? I cannot. To me that is just as impossible as saying "I know there is a god." I cannot say either thing. It gets to the heart of the agnosticism - I do not know if my life exists at the 'deepset level of implemetation' or not. Just like a simulated being would have no idea about the world that the simulators lived in. Or that the simulators were even there.

Pragmatically, though, I act and live as if I'm "real" and there is no god, no simulators, etc. And I do this because there is no compelling reason to do otherwise. But I cannot conclude from this that I know.

 

[(Q)]

Two possible examples come to mind:

(1) Beings that create and run sophisticated enough simulations that include virtual sentient beings. Relative to the simulated beingsm the simulators would have essentially 'god-likIt is a variant on the old "brain-in-a-vat" scenario or Descarte's Demon who controls your mind. The difference here is that there is a physically plausible path - you don't need a "demon."

I am such a scenario myself, only with tentacles.

Or, we're merely a 10 million year old computer attempting to solve the problem of life, the universe and everything.

Where and when do the real simulators step forth, or are they themselves only simulated?

But you are using physical properties that are essentailly contradictory, and that is why I don't like your example. Something cannot be pink (relfecting a particular subset of wavelengths) and invisible (reflecting no wavelengths of light at all) at the same time.

Like the burning bush unto Moses, our dragon doth revealed himself pink!

Sure, all those steps could be taken, at least in principle, but I say at least today that it warrants no further consideration because I highly doubt that science has taken the trouble to create said dragon. And I still disagree that it can be pink and invisible at the same time.

But that does not preclude the fact that science could create a dragon. And it could be pink and invisible, just not at the same time.

I do not know if my life exists at the 'deepset level of implemetation' or not. Just like a simulated being would have no idea about the world that the simulators lived in. Or that the simulators were even there.

Yay verily yon dragon lives and passes undetected.

Pragmatically, though, I act and live as if I'm "real" and there is no god, no simulators, etc. And I do this because there is no compelling reason to do otherwise. But I cannot conclude from this that I know.

I too pretend not to know the dragon is there.

 

[Lerxst]

Where and when do the real simulators step forth, or are they themselves only simulated?

Could be. There could be several levels of implementation. Bostrom discusses this. www.simulation-argument.com

Yay verily yon dragon lives and passes undetected.

I too pretend not to know the dragon is there.

Cute. When someone has an answer for the position of philosophical skepticism, I'm listening.