Religion identifies the simulator and insists that its intermediaries can offer a liaison between you and them, and also that if you don't believe in their particular simulator, you will be punished. It has been used for centuries to control the populace and to take their money.

A proponent of simulation theory isn't likely to tell you that it solves any philosophical problems, or that they now understand the universe wholly. I've never heard anyone talking about it claim that they know who/what is behind the simulation.

So IMO the distinction between the two couldn't be more clear.

I imagine there's at least a couple wacko groups out of there trying to twist simulation theory into a purely religious endeavor, but that wouldn't represent the mainstream conversation about it.

[–] PeriodicallyPedantic@lemmy.ca 0 points 1 year ago

That's an exceptionally narrow view of religion. There are plenty of religions that don't threaten damnation for disbelief. They do what ST does and explain why humans exist (in this case because a simulation was set up such that they'd be created, intentionally or not).

And why can't ST be used to scam people from money, like religion is?

This has the flavor of a true scottsman.