Not every differing opinion is 'bigotry.'
That's deep jordash
I'll never understand why the fact that cosmic dust came together and formed earth, and then elements came together and by pure 1:100000gabillion chance formed a living cell, which cell then spread and evolved into millions of different configurations, and out of those came sentient beings that could learn and build things like pyramids and airplanes and twinkies....
I just don't understand why that's not magical enough but instead we must invent stories about been created by aliens or super computers or some such idiocy.
Do you people even understand what an extraordinary rarity we are?
I think you're missing the point. The difference between this universe being "real" or being a "computer simulation" is very small. In fact, there's no difference at this time.
Defining reality as a bunch of sub-atomic particles interacting together in distinct, yet non-deterministic ways is what defines our world. We derive all intellect and "free-will" from these interactions; it doesn't matter if you call those interactions real or simulated..
At this stage in our species' evolution, this question probably can't be answered concretely. And it doesn't matter if it can, because it's inactionable. In thousands, millions or billions of years, if we've evolved enough, maybe it will matter.
Right now this is a philosophy question, and it's just as important as most of the rest: insofar as it's not important.
Ridiculing anyone who holds a different opinion is bigotry...
Bigotry is the state of mind of a bigot, defined by Merriam-Webster as "a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially: one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance".
Ridiculing anyone who holds a different opinion is bigotry, which is what the poster I was addressing did. No different than a religious bigot who things anyone who doesn't believe the same thing as them is an idiot. Two sides of the same bigoted coin.
None of us know for sure whether there was or wasn't a reason for our creation and existence...or if there is a reason, what it is. So when you call someone an idiot for offering up an idea that is no more or less provable than any other, you are a bigot.
You've got the degradation bit there, but not the prior self-centered and unwavering opinion. There's a difference. For example, I can ridicule you for being a dumb twat for not understanding what bigotry is and that wouldn't in and of itself be bigotry but rather ridicule. Bigotry would imply that I tell you what bigotry is, refute your claims as to what you believe it is, and declare myself the winner for all eternity.
The dude you claimed to be a bigot wasn't being a bigot because he never proclaimed himself to be right with absolute certainty nor even express his own opinion in such a manner. There's a clear difference between an opinion + ridicule and an opinion = bigotry, yet you jumped on the latter.
So why you gotta accuse everyone of being a bigot if you don't truly understand what the word means, you bigot!!~!~!`11``
If there is purpose, or reason, for the the universe, it has an awfully strange way of revealing it; that is to say, with everything we've measured or observed, it hasn't. Go figure. Extrapolating on that to suggest that we, on some pale blue dot, are divorced enough from the universe to have a purpose is leaping before looking. Concluding before having evidence. And so on.
What if we are in a simulation that a civilization is using to determine whether or not they are in a simluation?
Um, weird as it sounds, there are some VERY weird valid issues to address. For some damn reason, since I think back to 1940? They have been finding binary code in string theory. Aka, the universe does appear to be built on binary code. Since we can't actually prove our existence otherwise, why not try this angle?
So when he claims that believing anything, other than that we are the accidental result of a collection of cosmic dust particles colliding with just the right parameters, is "idiocy", that's not a self-centered and unwavering opinion? Proclaiming any views other than his to be idiocy, or rolling his eyes at "needing a reason for existence" isn't clear implication that he thinks he's right in not doing so?
You need to stop trying to be smarter than you actually are.
Now that's interesting. The whole subject makes me wonder about schizophrenics, etc. Maybe they're talking to voices of the simulators, maybe for some unknown reason..
Still not bigotry!