If you want to jump to the section about why I do not think Bible is the evidence for miracles it describes, click here.
If you want to jump to the section about why I think creationism is unable to explain anything, click here.
If you want to jump to the section about why I think theocracy is worse than communism, click here.
If you are interested in what Andreas Alcor thinks about my philosophy, you can also read his response here.

UPDATE on 09/01/2022: By far the most common argument against atheism, at least by Christians, is the so-called Pascal's Wager. It's a statement that atheism is risky because it is insulting to God if God happens to exist, and we cannot be certain that God does not exist, so we should supposedly be on the safe side. I think that one of the best responses is this: What makes you think Christianity is the safe side? If God happens to indeed exist, he is very unlikely to be the Christian God (considering how many religions there are out there). So, what is a greater insult, saying to God "Sorry, I did not know you exist. I only heard a bunch of nonsensical stories about you, so I assumed you were made up just like those stories obviously were." or "I am sorry, I seriously thought you were a psychopath who got angry at humanity and had to sacrifice your own son so that you could forgive us."? For similar reasons, I think it's way less wrong to be a radical anarchist than to be a liberal or a conservative (in the American sense of those words). Being a liberal or a conservative means you believe in fairy tales about how the police somehow magically protects us from violent crime. That's, in my opinion, way more wrong than thinking that the government should do nothing about superbacteria.

Digital physics is a metaphysical statement that the fundamental laws of nature are such that they are able to be simulated by a computer. The science is still far from discovering the fundamental laws of nature, so such statements still belong to metaphysics (show/hide details).
Digital physics is not widely accepted, and the main reason for that is probably that it's not being communicated in a good way. Digital physics is often described, even by its proponents, as the theory that the world could be a computer simulation. That's quite a bit misleading. Digital physics doesn't suppose it's likely that our universe is simulated by some giant computer in some alien civilization, it simply supposes that the fundamental laws of nature are such that they could, in principle, be simulated by an enough-powerful computer. A perhaps better summary would be that the universe itself is a giant computer (not a "computer simulation").
So, here are some of its implications:

1. The material world doesn't exist. Every being in the world is made only of information that's manageable by a computer, that is, ideas.
2. There are no miracles. Every event that happens in the world has to be explicable using those fundamental and computable natural laws.
3. God doesn't, and can't, exist. The same goes for the afterlife.
4. Free will is entirely explicable using the computational complexity. Every system with enough computational complexity can be said to have free will. And since free will is so-to-say an illusion, laws make little sense, and punishing people who break the law with prisons makes even less sense. Which is one reason why I am a libertarian.
5. Space and time themselves are made of pixels, small pieces of information. Each pixel is connected to a relatively small number of other pixels by an adjacency list. A change (movement) in one of these pixels can be caused only by the state of the pixels it's connected to. If you know the state of the pixels it's connected to, you can calculate its state. Now, it is hard to tell how the universe tells which pixel is connected to which pixel. The world is almost certainly not a Cellular Automaton, so that there is locality (that each pixel is connected only to its adjacent pixels), as that makes Quantum Entanglement hard to explain.

I realize that most of the implications I've listed seem absurd to most of the people today. But it's actually very easy to argue for them. Space and time being made of pixels appears to efficiently solve the Zeno's paradox of the Achiles and Tortoise. It goes like this: Consider a race of fast Achilles and a slow turtle. At the beginning of the race, the turtle is placed ahead of Achilles by 100m. Both of them start to run. Achilles reaches the place where the turtle used to be at the beginning of the race, however, the turtle has already moved a little. Achilles then runs to the place when the turtle was when he was 100m ahead of his start, however, the turtle has moved a bit more. And by the time Achilles reaches the place where the turtle is, the turtle will have moved even farther away. Therefore, Achilles can never overtake the turtle, only the distance between them decreases, but it never reaches zero. Now, obviously, Achilles will eventually overtake the Turtle. It seems like the only sensible solution is that we assume that space and time are made of pixels, that the space is made of small cubes and that no particle can occupy only a part of such a cube, and that time is also not continuous. Then, the distance between Achilles and the turtle can't be between zero and the length of a pixel, but it goes immediately to zero when it comes the time when it should be smaller than a pixel, as it happens in computer games. I dare notice that Digital Physics is rather unique among metaphysical theories in that it at least attempts to address the Zeno's Paradox. Other metaphysical theories all seem to either pretend that it's not an issue, or they make some truly bizarre explanations such as time being an illusion (whatever that meant).
For most of the people today, the idea that the material world doesn't exist seems absurd. But, to paraphrase George Berkeley, we can only perceive ideas. When we say we see the Moon, we don't mean we perceive the Moon itself, we perceive only its appearance. And appearance is an idea. And the ideas can't be caused by material things, they share no properties of material things. Ideas can only be caused by other ideas. Therefore, the Moon can't be made only of material things, it has to be made of ideas. So, even if matter does exist, we have no way of perceiving it. It can't have an effect on anything we perceive, and it's therefore not a part of this world in any meaningful way. (I've started a thread about George Berkeley's philosophy on AtheistForums.) Another good argument against dualism (there being two types of substances, material and spiritual, and neither being reducible to the other one) I have heard is that, in order to suppose dualism is true, we would need to conceive a neuroscientist who says, with a straight face, "We have applied the laws of physics and chemistry to neurons, and we got results which do not match the reality. Therefore, we need to take into account emotions and thoughts as well as the laws of nature, to correctly predict how neurons will behave.". Of course, we can conceive anybody saying anything, but is it conceivable that there is a situation in which it is reasonable to say that? The Leibniz's Monadology, the claim that the material and the spiritual world do not actually react, but only appear to react, avoids that problem. However, I think that claim goes wildly against the Occam's Razor (Why not simply assume either material world or the spiritual world is an illusion?).
Many people would say there is enough evidence of miracles supposedly happened in history, like the resurrection of the Christ. I think that they say that because they haven't tried to imagine the situation the New Testament describes. Imagine that someone you love is murdered. While you grieve, there comes some stranger and claims he is that person who rose from the dead. Would you believe him? Of course not! Then why do people think the apostles were right to do so? And that is assuming the events described by the New Testament actually happened. Why assume that? New Testament makes some very specific historic statements, which turn out to be false. For example, the Massacre of Innocents described in the Gospel of Matthew 2:16. No serious historian argues it really happened. You can perhaps dismiss the lack of evidence of Jesus himself existing as "Well, Jesus was just some insignificant guy, the ancient historians did not write about such things.", you cannot dismiss the Massacre of the Innocents the same way. Also, most Christians do not know that (at least I didn't know before I read the Bible), but the Gospel of Matthew claims that many people were resurrected at that time, and not just Jesus (Matthew 27:53). While in that verse in the original and in the early translations the wording seems somewhat weird, as an unusual word is used for grave, no scholar, as far I know, doubted that the intended meaning was that many people at the time rose from the dead and appeared to many people in Jerusalem. How is it possible something like that went unnoticed by non-Christian scholars at that time? I think most educated Christians would agree that, given what we know, the Massacre of Innocence or the zombie apocalypse couldn't have happened (I started a forum thread about it). So, if Bible makes such statements, why trust the other things it says, such as that Jesus existed? Not to mention obvious nonsense in the Bible such as the "mountain so high all the kingdoms on Earth are visible from it" from Luke 4:5 and Matthew 4:8 (implying the Earth is flat) or Saint Peter saying, in Acts 2:20, that the way we will know the Judgement Day is coming soon will be that the Moon will be blood-red (How can something that has always been the case, such as Moon being red during a lunar eclipse, be a sign that the Judgement Day is coming soon?) and obvious contradictions between the Gospels (Who discovered the empty tomb? Did the angel Gabriel reveal himself to Joseph or to Mary?...). So, even if we disregard the basic principle of history (that our understanding of history has to be in line with science), there still remains a strong case against the Bible being a reliable source.
Now, I know, many religious people believe that the apparent contradictions and nonsense in the Bible is a result of Bible being mistranslated, that the Bible even contains a lot of scientific knowledge, but that it has been lost in translation. Well, there are three problems with that claim:

• Why would an omnipotent God let that happen? Why would he let his word end up being corrupt?
• If there really were scientific knowledge in the Bible, how is it possible that none of the ancient scholars, who knew the languages the Bible was written in far better than anybody does today, noticed that? Is not it kind of arrogant to claim that? Don't get me wrong, I understand the appeal of such theories, my alternative interpretation of the names of places in Croatia is about of the same form (that names of places were explicable using languages that were spoken back then, but that all the scholars who were writing about those things failed to note that). But claiming that for the Bible, which literally hundreds of scholars in ancient times commented on, is just implausible.
• How do you know it is not the opposite of that? How do you know the meaning has been lost in translation, rather than a meaning being added to meaningless passages by translations? In Judith 8:34 in Vulgate, which is quite a literal translation of the Greek original, it says "Et revertentes abierunt.". Try to, without looking at modern translations, come up with a meaning which is both grammatically possible and logically possible. Can you? When I was reading the Bible in Latin, I was not able to. And, when I looked at modern translations, they seemed rather fanciful. I am no expert in Latin and Greek, but I think that passage would sound like an ungrammatical gibberish to native speakers of Latin and Greek.

I don't have all the time in the world to look into other supposed holy books, but I suspect them to be similar in that regard. Furthermore, as David Hume said, how come people to whom God reveals himself are almost always people for which we have a good reason to think they are insane? Saint Paul, who is basically a founder of Christianity (as Jesus Christ left nothing written), is generally agreed by scholars to have been a serial killer. Muhammad was, given what we know today, probably a pedophile. Why couldn't God at least pick a sane person to spread his word? I understand that, as Jesus said in Matthew 9:12, "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick." (which is, I think, wrong, as many illnesses are easy to prevent while you are healthy if you know about them), but there is very little evidence of God healing anybody. And choosing a sane person to spread his word would be a good idea, wouldn't it?
It seems to me that, when Christians try to interpret the Bible (or Muslims try to interpret Koran), they are constantly committing the Spiritual Fallacy. It is this form of reasoning:

1. X is being stated.
2. X makes no sense.
3. Therefore, X was meant in the "spiritual" sense.

That way of thinking is fallacious. If somebody says something that doesn't make sense, it is possible that he is insane or even just joking, it doesn't follow he meant it in the spiritual sense.
So, what was Jesus to the early Christians? Can we admit it is at least possible that Jesus was to early Christians what Superman is to comic book fans today: a fictional character? Maybe the nonsensical verses such as Acts 2:20 (that the Moon going blood-red will be a sign that the end of the world is near) were intended to be jokes. Maybe it was obvious to the early Christians that the Massacre of the Innocents and the many people rising from the dead and walking to Jerusalem couldn't have happened. Just like it is obvious to the Don Quijote readers that the events it is describing couldn't have happened, even though the book doesn't explicitly say it is a work of fiction. Books explicitly stating that they are a work of fiction is a recent phenomenon. Or maybe Jesus was what John Frum is today, a supposed founder of the Cargo Cult, which obviously didn't really exist. It's hard to tell. But what we know the Bible isn't is a revelation from an omnipotent God.
We appear to be bombarded with the examples of miracles happening everywhere. However, we almost never have enough knowledge to evaluate those examples. And when we do, we end up with a conclusion that maybe it wasn't a miracle after all. Kind of similar to the stories of government policies helping, see my blog-post about libertarianism for that. Sure, claiming that government can heal the ills of the society is far less absurd than the claim that actual miracles (defying the laws of natural sciences) happen, but it is of the same form. Fixing the society's ills, if possible at all, is only possible with knowledge of social sciences that nobody yet has. And governments are more-or-less in the position of medieval physicians, trying to solve problems they do not understand. Social sciences we have today are proto-science, and claim that governments have cured some societal illness is just as absurd as the claim that ancient physicians cured anybody. Yet, politicians bombard us with supposed examples of government policies curing the society, as if us not being to explain away every single one of those examples somehow proves governments are necessary, rather than about as harmful as ancient physicians were. In other words, they bombard us with controversial claims about their miraculous achievements. And the same goes for the claims that farming animals somehow improves the environment (as people who are against vegetarianism often claim). We do not understand much about how ecology works, and thinking we can improve it is absurd. Getting back to the topic, people in ancient times used to believe that everything was a miracle: earthquakes meant spirits were displeased and a flash from sky meant God was angry. Today, we laugh at those superstitions. Yet, many people use that same type of reasoning today. As if the opposite of "I can explain it." is not "I cannot explain it.", but, somehow, that it is "God did it!" (even when it does no apparent good, like earthquakes, or has obvious flaws, like human body has).
The simple truth is, if there was a good all-powerful God, there would be no evil in the world. But there obviously is. Religious people generally respond by saying that evil is necessary because of free will. But free will is not the only cause of evil in the world. How could free will be responsible for the earthquakes and the children being born ill? Furthermore, thanks to modern science, we know evil in the world long predates free will: animals capable of feeling pain existed for hundreds of millions of years before humans (I've opened a thread about that on Christianity StackExchange). And quite a few of them died very painful deaths. For example, rabbits that live longer than around 2 years (if something, such as an accident or a predator or some other illness, does not kill them before that), have more than 50% chance of getting ovarian or testicular cancer (sexual organs of many animals appear to be exceptionally poorly designed). So, unless you will hold animals responsible for their actions, you cannot claim all suffering in the world comes from free will. Not to mention, the existence of an omniscient God is probably philosophically incompatible with free will. Erasmus of Rotterdam needed to write whole books about the topic making ad-hoc hypotheses around that problem. So, saying "God can exist in spite of evil in the world, because evil in the world is a necessary consequence of free will." is literally as stupid as when the Flat-Earthers say ships disappear bottom first even when there are no waves. Obviously ships disappear bottom first even when there are no waves, and waves are not even an explanation for ships disappearing bottom first: as long as waves are below your eye level, they cannot cover anything above your eye level. Similarly, free will is obviously not the cause of all evil in the world, and it actually cannot even explain why evil would exist if there was an omniscient God. Many religious people, starting perhaps with the philosopher Gottfried Leibniz, say we are living in the best of all possible worlds, and all the evil is an illusion. But if that were true, engineering (improving the world by applying science) would be impossible, and it clearly is not. (I have started a thread about that on Philosophy StackExchange.) Furthermore, it is clear an intelligent designer would do at least slightly better job designing a human being than the evolution did. The vast majority of birds and mammals can synthesize Vitamin C themselves and cannot get scurvy. Their liver produces Vitamin C. Human beings and monkeys have the genes for that, but they are corrupted into being useless. During history, a significant percentage of population died because of scurvy. Scurvy is still relatively common, and almost certainly under-diagnosed. Creationists generally claim the genes for producing Vitamin C got corrupt independently in monkeys and early humans because they both followed a diet high in Vitamin C. However, there seems to be an easy way to prove that wrong: if that were true, we would expect different mutations in the Vitamin C producing genes in monkeys and humans. Yet, we see exactly the same mutation preventing the production of Vitamin C in both monkeys and humans. There seems to be no way for a creationist to explain that fact (I've opened a forum thread about that). This is not the best of all possible worlds, that much should have been obvious back at the time of Leibniz, and it should be even more obvious now.
The world is full of such things suggesting it wasn't intelligently designed. For example, human beings cannot detect a lack of oxygen in their blood, and can only detect high CO₂ levels. Which is usually a good proxy, but sometimes it is not. When we are on a high mountain, both CO₂ and oxygen levels in our blood fall, but we do not feel the urge to breathe more deeply. That can be dangerous. Yet, there are some mammals relatively closely related to humans which can detect lack of oxygen in their blood, and respond appropriately. Similarly, monkey immune system can deal with HIV-like viruses well, whereas human immune system collapses because of them. If there was an intelligent designer who had human DNA, and DNA of other species, like programming code on their computer, solving those problems would be a simple copy-paste to them. Why did not they do that? An obvious explanation is that there was no such intelligent designer. And "This is the best of all possible worlds." requires such a designer to be almighty. Once you assume that, the world makes even less sense. Why does our liver respond to fructose in diet as if we were starving, that is, producing VLDL (which is useful if there is not enough fat in the diet, but otherwise causes heart disease) and doing gluconeogenesis (as if there was not enough glucose in the diet)? There does not seem to be a simple solution? So what, when the designer of this world is supposed to be almighty? Why does our liver respond to saturated diet in our diet by massively raising the LDL cholesterol levels and slightly increasing HDL cholesterol levels, as well as becoming more insulin resistant? Our diet is not supposed to include a lot of saturated fat or fructose? Sorry, I am not buying that explanation, as our natural diet clearly included a significant portion of both. Regardless, why wouldn't an almighty designer make our bodies respond more appropriately? The way our bodies react to fructose and saturated fat make little sense even in the context of the evolution (though it can be rationalized by saying evolution did not care what would happen with a human body once a human lives over 40, since, in nature, very few people lived over 40), and much less so in the context of intelligent design. Why does our immune system respond to trans-fat in blood by causing heart attacks? An almighty creator did not think we will one day eat margarine, soybean oil and butter, unaware of the danger of trans-fat (worse yet, thinking they are healthy, back when we understood physiology enough to understand the dangers of saturated fat, but not enough to understand the dangers of trans-fat)? Well, you can perhaps explain away trans-fat being dangerous that way, but you cannot explain away the way our bodies react to fructose and saturated fat. And why does heme iron mixed with omega-6-acids cause colon cancer? Why did not the almighty creator fix it? There does not seem to be a simple solution, because we do not know exactly how heme iron causes colon cancer? Again, we are talking about an almighty and omniscient creator here. The creator did not want us to eat meat? Oh, and they couldn't think of a better solution? Furthermore, why do the laws of nature seem so hostile to life, especially intelligent life? Abiogenesis can only happen in an environment without oxygen (because oxygen destroys nearly all organic compounds), yet intelligent life can presumably only evolve in an environment in which oxygen can be used as a source of energy. The way laws of physics and chemistry are set in this universe, intelligent life evolving presumably requires a mass extinction caused by a massive increase in oxygen in the atmosphere, in which some Rhizobium-like bacteria (on which all modern life on Earth depends) accidentally survive, as has happened on Earth two times (massive increase of oxygen in the atmosphere followed by a mass extinction of nearly all life on Earth). On Earth, we survived all that. But the vast majority of universe is void of life. On most planets, abiogenesis did not happen at all. On most planets where it did happen, life is limited to underground bacteria (like presumably Mars) or bacteria floating up in the atmosphere (like perhaps Venus). Saying the nature was designed by an almighty creator with intelligent life like us in mind is, in the light of evidence we have, beyond absurd. Even saying the creator guided evolution or merely set up the laws of nature is absurd. Religious people will either pretend that it is not an issue with their religion, or arrogantly claim that the evidence has been misinterpreted. But why are we living in a universe in which evidence for the creation is so easily misinterpreted? It is true that nature is full of amazing good things which seem difficult to explain via evolution (eyes...), but that is not an argument for the existence of a creator unless you somehow discount all the amazing bad things in nature. HIV, for example. Its evolution seems rather puzzling, does not it? I mean, it is a virus that purposefully modifies your DNA to shut down your immune system. How could something like that even begin to evolve, when only 3% of human DNA is transcribed onto mRNA (and less than a third of that 3% is actually useful information about how different protein is synthesized), and thus a virus that tries to achieve something by randomly modifying your DNA has at least 97% chance of accomplishing absolutely nothing? Not only begin to evolve and co-evolve with some host, but also jump across species with different number of chromosomes, as it jumped onto humans from monkeys in wet markets? If we were to use the creationist logic that everything which is difficult to explain in terms of evolution (at least to a layman) needs to be done by God, then we are forced to conclude the obviously unacceptable notion that God created HIV.
And belief in creationism is a fertile ground for all kinds of dangerous science denial. If we believe our bodies were intelligently designed, there is a reason to believe science is wrong about saturated fat causing heart disease, because why wouldn't the creator do anything about it? Or even that statins work, because why would a creator make our liver produce low-density cholesterol in response to saturated fat and fructose if it did not make sense? Namely, many people, many of whom are creationists, claim low-density cholesterol is our body's proper response to inflammation in the arteries and should not be countered by statins, in spite of the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. If you believe in non-guided evolution, there is no problem accepting those facts from nutritional science. If creationism is true, then nature knows best. If it is not, then discussions about what is natural and what is not are pointless. And any intelligent person would agree that they are pointless. And not too long ago, many people were denying high blood pressure (caused, for example, by salt) should be treated, with similar arguments. They claimed high blood pressure is a natural and good response of our body to our blood vessels getting too narrow, so that blood can be forced through those vessels in spite of them being too narrow. Creationism gives credibility to such claims. We need to stop giving credibility to such claims, as they significantly hinder the advancement of medicine and nutritional science.
If there is a God, how it is that, in the history of science, almost everybody who made a religion-based argument got the wrong answer? One of the few things Einstein got wrong is rejecting quantum mechanics for religious reasons, saying "I am convinced that God doesn't play dice.". Opponents of heliocentricism cited the Bible (Joshua 10:12-15) as evidence that the Sun moves around the Earth (and they were almost certainly right that the authors of the Bible believed that). Opponents of the deep time also cited various Bible verses which supposedly say that (We can debate about whether the authors of the Bible actually believed the Earth to be only a few thousand years old, but that's what the people in the 19th century were arguing). Such arguments have a track record of failure of nearly 100%. Why is it so? If the Bible contains valuable scientific knowledge, why does Scholastics have such a blatantly bad track-record? Why it is that only when people stopped valuing revelation as the source of knowledge did the science start to advance?
Many people find the idea that there is no afterlife frightening. Well, I find the idea of there being one way more frightening. Think of it this way: you were dead for eternity before you were born. It's not that you suffered because of that, you just simply weren't there. And I find it comforting to think that everyone who claims there is something to be afraid of after you die is just sucking that out of his little finger. Afterlife, as is commonly imagined, appears to contradict the basics of quantum mechanics. Namely, most people imagine souls as something that can see but can in no way be detected. But quantum mechanics teaches us there is no such thing as a passive observer. Not to mention the philosophical problems with afterlife, namely, what makes you you. In what sense is a soul, which does not have any of your memories (which are demonstrably stored in your brain), you? What good is it if I am reunited with my dead grandmother in heaven if I will not be able to recognize her, nor will she be able to recognize me? Like the philosopher Keith Augustine said, what survivalists (people who believe in afterlife, that our consciousness somehow survives the physical death) are actually claiming is that a complete destruction of the brain is a cure for psychiatric and neurological illnesses that has somehow eluded medical science, and that is obviously an absurd suggestion.
Atheism has a bad name, because some of the well-known atheists, like Karl Marx, just replaced God with another dogma, like communism. Socialism and communism don't logically follow from atheism in any way. Besides, how is theocracy, advocated by many religious people, any better than communism? Like Clive Staples Lewis (otherwise a devout Christian) explained: "The nearer any government approaches to theocracy the worse it will be. Metaphysics held by rulers with force of religion is a bad sign. It forbids them, like the inquisitor, to admit any grain of truth or good in their opponents, it abrogates the ordinary rules of morality and it gives a seemingly high, super-personal sanction to all the very ordinary human passions by which, like other men, the rulers will frequently be actuated. In a word, it forbids wholesome doubt. A political program can never be more than probably right. We never know all the facts about the present and we can only guess the future. To attach to a party program, whose highest claim is to reasonable prudence, the sort of assent which we should reserve for demonstrable theorems, is a kind of intoxication.". Communists at least realize their political program is made by a fallible human being, which is Karl Marx. They think it is based on science (it really is not, but that is irrelevant here), and they realise science is sometimes wrong. Theocrats think their political program is made by an infallible deity, and, as such, they are more immune to the evidence of their policies doing more harm than good. Theocracy is also far less sensible than communism. Theocracy assumes the spiritual world exists, that the spiritual beings communicate with humans, that the communication between some spiritual entity and the person who wrote their holy book did occur, that the being that communicated to us from that spiritual world is benevolent, and that they knows more about what is going on in our world than we ourselves do. Each of those assumptions is not based on solid evidence, and, taken together, the idea of theocracy is more ridiculous than the idea of communism. Not to mention, almost nobody thinks we should take political ideas from children. But religious fundamentalists are essentially doing the same thing. They are taking their political ideas from people who knew about the world less than 5th-graders know today. No matter how wise people in the past were, they couldn't have foreseen the problems we are facing now for which it seems like we need a government. You think that most of the problems for which government intervention is necessary have existed forever? Don't think, look! What are some problems we are facing today for which it seems like the only solution is the government intervention? Massive use of antibiotics in the egg industry leading to superbacteria, for example. People living a century ago couldn't have foreseen that problem. Or the ISPs incorrectly setting up their DNS servers so that the hackers can use them to amplify DDOS attacks. There are various ways of mitigating that, but arguably the best solution is to stop using unencrypted DNS altogether. But that requires a government intervention, as ISPs are lobbying against DNS over HTTPS, as it slightly slows their Internet connection down. People living 50 years ago couldn't have foreseen that problem. And so on. Theocracies will probably not even address those problems. If anything, they do the opposite of the solutions to those problems (such as Turkmenistan banning DNS over HTTPS to make it easier to implement Internet censorhip). I am quite sure theocracy is worse than no government at all, and that Somalia was better off without a government than under the theocratic dictatorship.
I hope I've communicated the ideas of digital physics in an understandable and thought-provoking way. I understand that, if you this is the first time you were exposed to the ideas of digital physics, you probably aren't convinced. In fact, you likely consider me crazy. It's OK, I just hope I've made you think so that you might change your mind.

UPDATE on 03/06/2018: There are many examples of how physical phenomena, which are almost impossible to calculate by hand, can be simulated by a computer program of just a few lines of code. One of them I've made is the analog clock linked to the left (the pendular movement is extremely hard to calculate, yet it can be easily simulated by a computer). The other one might be the electric field simulator I've made today. So, why couldn't the whole universe be just like that?

UPDATE on 29/07/2019: It's a common misconception that people educated in history and social sciences tend to believe in creationism, or at least strongly believe in God. That's just not true. I've opened a thread about religion on a Latin language forum, and what's obvious is that people there don't like talking about religion. In case that website goes down, here is the short essay I've written, feel free to copy from me: Quid homines in hac agora censent, num Deus realis sit? Ego censeo Deum non realem esse. Si Deus realis sit, quomodo possibile est ut tot differentes religiones in terra sint? Cur Deus permittat his religionibus exsistere, et ut tot homines audiant solummodo fabulas de Deis, quae non sunt veritas? Cur omnipotens et benevolens Deus permittat tot innocentibus hominibus in Tartarum ire falsae religionis causa?
Et Biblia dicit multas res, quas nunc scimus non veras esse. Jesus dixit eclipses lunae et solis signum Dei fuisse ("Sol convertetur in tenebras, et luna in sanguinem, antequam veniat dies Domini magnus et manifestus."). Nunc scimus, et multi philosophi eo tempore etiam sciebant, id non ita esse. Jesus praedicavit pauperes pauperiores futuros esse, et quod dives divitiores futuri sint ("Omni enim habenti dabitur, et abundabit, ei autem qui non habet, et quod videtur habere, auferetur ab eo."). Et hodie paene nemo est ita pauper, quomodo paene omnes homines eo tempore erant. Eo tempore paene omnes homines nudi erant, quia non poterant togas emere. Et Jesus etiam dixit bellum solutionem fuisse ("Nolite arbitrari quia pacem venerim mittere in terram, non veni pacem mittere, sed gladium."). Si Jesus in vicesimo saeculo esset, is cum socialistibus concordet. Jesu non fuit sapientia divina.
Et de theologia, ego diligo quod Richard Dawkins scripsit: "Theologia numquam dixit aliquid, quod neque perspicuum fuisset (facile visu), neque falsum fuisset. Quando theologia dixit aliquid, quod alicui utile (quod aliquem adiuvat) est? Vera scientia curas morborum sciscit, theologia loquitur peccata morbos facere.".
UPDATE on 02/09/2019: I received a response on the thread on the Latin forum, here is the response, and here is what I responded back: Quid homines in hac agora censent, num Deus realis sit? Ego censeo Deum non realem esse. Si Deus realis sit... Salve, amice!
Puto primum quaestionem esse, quid significat "esse"? Quaero quoque, quid significat "real"? Nonne facile est dicere deum non esse, si haec verba significant opiniones quae hodie mundum dominant?
Qualis res (realis) est?
Quid facimus cuando dicamus de rebus realibus et de rebus qui non reales sint? Quid agimus?
Vale
Adamus, qui nondum saepe latine loquor, quare errat. Quid est tibi? Nonne cogitas hoc, quod scripsisti, posse etiam de draconibus et unicornibus dici, non solummodo de Deo?
Difficile dictu est quid realitas sit. Sed si aliquid absurdum sit, possumus scire id non realis esse. Omnipotens et benevolens Deus, qui terraemotos permittat, absurdus est. Benevolens (non malus) Deus, qui faciat homines in Tartarum ire falsae religionis causa, absurdus est. Et omnipotentia (verbum de aliquo qui omnia possit) ipsa absurda est. Potestne omnipotens Deus petram ita gravis (non levis) facere, ut eam is ipse non movere possit?
UPDATE on 15/10/2019: I've just published a YouTube video explaining more reasons to reject the concept of God. You can see it here. In case your browser has trouble playing that, you can download a low-quality MP4 video here. If that also fails, you can download a MP3 audio here.

UPDATE on 24/09/2020: I've published a YouTube video with English comments to my earlier video (which was in Latin). You can see it here. In case you can't open it, try downloading the minified MP4 video and opening it in VLC or something similar. If you have trouble understanding English spoken with a Croatian accent, you can download the transcript.

UPDATE on 18/12/2020: I've written another essay about religion in Latin, this time about afterlife. I've posted it on Reddit and Textkit. Quid homines in hac agora censent, num vita post mortem existat? Creditisne in paradisum, quo boni homines eunt cum morientur, et in flammam aeternam (Tartarus), ubi mali homines eunt cum morientur, vel in reincarnationem, et cetera? Ego censeo vitam post mortem non realem esse.
Multi homines huius temporis dicunt physica quantorum arguere pro vita post mortem. Sed ego censeo physica quantorum arguere contra vitam post mortem. Si non contra omnes formas vitae post mortem, tunc contra formam vitae post mortem in quam plurimi homines credunt. Plurimi homines imaginantur animas, et ut ea animas quodam modo possint videre, sed eae animae non possint videri ab aliquibus machinis. Sed physica quantorum docet nobis quod passivi observatores non dantur. Particulae electricitatis agunt ut undae cum non spectantur, sed eae agunt ut particulae cum spectantur. Si animae existunt quae possunt videre, eae animae possint videri ab aliquibus machinis. Ergo, forma vitae post mortem, in quam plurimi homines credunt, ea contradicit firmissimae scientiae, quae est physica quantorum.
Et ego censeo omnia forma vitae post mortem contradicunt scientiae de cerebro. Rogeris: Quid aliquod ens debet habere, ut illud ens tu ipse sit? Illud ens debet habere tuas memorias et tuas ideas, annon? Sed scimus eas res partes cerebri esse. Ergo, quomodo potest tua anima, pars tui quae supersit cum tu morieris, esse idem quod tu es? Si pars cerebri nocita est, homo non potest homines, quos scit, cognoscere. Non necessarium dictu, ea pars cerebri, quae homines cognoscit, finit operari tempore quo homo moritur. Quid bonum animae in paradiso esse sit, si ea anima non potest suos mortuos amicos cognoscere?
Et si homines habent animam qui tempus potest sentire, quomodo id est ut, cum homo evigilat ex coma ("somnium" in quo cerebrum agit nihil), is nescit quantum tempum ibat? Sane, aliqui homines qui in sine conscientia erant, dicunt se videre aliquid (lucem, cryptam, cuniculum...). Sed plurimi homines qui sine conscientia erant, memorantur nullas res ex eo tempore. Quomodo id possibile est, si homines habeant animas? Si homines habeant animas, homines qui sine conscientia sunt, sentiant longas (quia tempus ibat) silentes tenebras (quia partes cerebri, quae vident et audiunt, non operantur), annon?
Ego etiam censeo vitam post mortem contradicere theoriam evolutionis. Hodie nos scimus nostras mentes in gente esse cum mentes animalium. Ergo, ubi linea (limes) esset? Quae animalia habent animam, et quae animalia non habent animam? Spongiae animalia sunt quae non habent nervos. Ergo, habentne spongiae animas? Aliquae animalia, cindaria, exampli gratia, non habent cerebrum, sed habent nervos. An cindariae ergo habent animas? Et aliquae animalia plus intellegentia sunt ab aliquibus hominibus. Aliquae simiae plus intellegentes sunt ab aliquibus hominibus, qui cum debili cerebro nati sunt. An simiae ergo habent animas?
Multi homines censent iustitiam esse, quod vita post mortem (paradisum et flamma aeterna) existat. Sed omnia mala quae in hoc mundo possumus agere finita (non infinita) sunt, et poena flammae aeternae (Tartarus) infinita est. Ergo, poena flammae aeternae numquam potest iustitia esse. Reincarnatio etiam iustitia non est. Quomodo potest iustitia esse, aliquem punire si is non scit cur is punitur?
Multi homines dicunt se timere non existendi post mortem, quia non existere aliquid horribile sit. Sed omnes eramus mortui infinito tempore antequam nati sumus, et non patiebamur eius causa. Mors abstrahit omnia placita ex nostris vitis, sed ea etiam abstrahit omnes dolores ex nostris vitis. Cum mortui erimus, non sentiemus quo tempus ibit. Non videbimus aeternas tenebras. Mortuo homini tempus finit, tempus non ibit ei. Sicut Epicurus dixit: Cum ego sum, mors non est, et cum mors erit, ego non ero. So far, I've received one slightly interesting response: Salve, fortasse discrimen me facere liceas, et spero mi dimittas quod non doctus sum Latine. Primum, puto physicam hodiernam non aliquid gentis tuae ostendere. Id est, ego censeo homines esse liberos; semper cum duae res sint quarum una eligi oportet, tu et ego et omnes quidquid facere possunt. Quia id censeo, necesse est dicere plus quam naturam (sententiam hodiernam) esse; quoniam si quidquid ex natura fit, nihil mundum mutare possit quod non in mundo iam fuit; meum et tuum cerebrum modo sit ab omnibus rebus perfactis creatum. Spero intelligas. Ergo, duae sunt viae: utra homines non sunt liberi an natura non est res sola. Puto quoque (ut dixi) homines liberos. Cur? Quia omnes mecum putant! Qui igitur non liberos esse putat, fortasse nimis multum putavit. Ergo natura non est sola; et quomodo physica possit cognoscere quod deesse naturae? Et, ceterum, rationes credendi religionis non malas existimo; inter omnes, Christi. Si verum est quod dixi (praecipue de libertate hominum) vita post mortem fere sit, vel docti id censere bene possint. Etiam de tuis rebus possim dicere, ante omnes velim de animis hominum post mortem mutandis, sed non multum tempus habeo. Tibi gratias:) I responded as follows: Salve, fortasse discrimen me facere liceas, et spero mi dimittas quod non doctus sum Latine. Per me, bene loqueris Latine. Primum, puto physicam hodiernam non aliquid gentis tuae ostendere. Forsan. Sed physica hodierna firmissima scientia est quae habemus. Omnia alia scientia quae habemus hodie peiora sunt. nihil mundum mutare possit quod non in mundo iam fuit Quid? Nostrae mentes clare interagunt cum mundo naturale, si non sint naturales ipsae. Nostrae mentes mutantur a res in mundo naturale: nos videmus luce et audimus aere, exampli gratia. Et nostrae mentes mutant mundum naturalem: eae possunt nostras musculos movere. meum et tuum cerebrum modo sit ab omnibus rebus perfactis creatum. Quid significat "perfactis"? Spero intelligas Non intellego. utra homines non sunt liberi an natura non est res sola Quid tibi signifat "liberi"? Natura non est deterministica, physica quantorum et secunda lex thermodynamici docet nobis id. Res in natura possunt esse liberae. Si omnisciens Deus exsistat, tunc spons (libera voluntas) forsan non possit exsistere. et quomodo physica possit cognoscere quod deesse naturae? Saeculos abhinc, homines censebant terraemotos res naturales non fuisse. Hodie, scientia de eis docet.
UPDATE on 29/12/2020: I've written a script for my new video about atheism.

UPDATE on 31/12/2020: I have published my new YouTube video about atheism in Latin. If you cannot open it, try downloading this MP4 and opening it in VLC or a similar program. See the link above for a transcript. (UPDATE on 26/07/2021: I noticed "poena" (punishment) is not pronounced "paw-EH-nah" (as I pronounced it a few times in the video), but "POY-nah". That is because it comes from Greek. I assumed it was pronounced "paw-EH-nah" because of the Croatian word "poen" with a similar meaning being pronounced "PAW-en". As it turns out, they are unrelated.)

UPDATE on 06/07/2022: I have made a new video about afterlife (MP4).

UPDATE on 03/02/2023: Andreas Alcor has, a few months ago, written a response to my video about afterlife. I have decided to copy it here, in case somebody is interested and has not joined his Discord server: The Latin is certainly impressive, but I don't think philosophy is impressive there.
I honestly don't understand his counter-argument that "If humans have souls, how it is that humans who have been unconscious for a long period of time have no idea how much time has passed?" is an equivocation fallacy, that I am mixing up two meanings of the word "time" there: "χρονος" and "καιρος". I have asked a question on Latin Language StackExchange about the difference in meaning between those two Ancient Greek words.

UPDATE on 22/06/2023: I have asked a question on Philosophy StackExchange about my thesis that the premise of the Thomas Aquinas'es Argument from Degrees contradicts the Third Law of Thermodynamics, which I claimed in some of my YouTube videos.

UPDATE on 11/09/2023: Another problem with the belief in souls is... If souls exist, why should we trust neuroscientists about which living beings feel pain and which ones do not? Descartes claimed that only human beings feel pain, that non-human animals don't feel pain. Most of the people would agree that science has proved that hypothesis wrong. But how can science know that if souls exist? When arguing that fish, unlike birds and mammals, don't feel pain, we use arguments such as: (Maybe you disagree with that, but that's the kind of arguments that scientists are using to argue for or against some type of animal feeling pain. A counter-argument might be something along the lines of "Perhaps, in fish which have nociceptors, the type-Aδ neurofibers play the role that type-c neurofibers do in birds and mammals.") But if souls exist, wouldn't such arguments be... besides the point? I mean, if souls exist, then nobody is an expert in whether some animal feels pain. In fact, for all we know, plants and bacteria could feel pain as well. But most of the people believe in souls yet are fairly certain that the apple they are eating is not in pain. Why is it so?