The thing is, you're not wrong. You're just kind of mean and arrogant to reduce a multiplicity of nuanced worldviews that many people care about very deeply to simple meaninglessness.
Your argument is ironically the reductive one. I have complete respect for people who choose to believe in an organized religion. But it remains the case that whether or not you can prove a higher deity, that in of itself has no bearing on how you should live your life. You can disprove the existence of god and still choose to believe in religion. You can prove the existence and still choose to not believe in any religious system. So proving the existence is worthless.
This comment is actually a much more reasonable expression of your point than the earlier one - you mentioned you respect the people who believe in religion and revised your claim to state that proof of the unfalsifiable is meaningless (which is nearly tautological). That logic is sound (though you could make an argument that attempting to prove something unfalsifiable when you're emotionally invested in it and it's otherwise harmless could be fulfilling).
Your earlier comment had a different tone and sentiment; namely, that belief in something unfalsifiable has no impact on someone's life, and that you can't understand why grown adults would bother with it. That was the specific sentiment I found to be offensive.
For what it's worth, I'm agnostic.
2) You're the one calling it idol worship. I'm pointing out that most people would not take this idea seriously if it weren't Elon Musk saying it - and I still believe this is true.
3) The high school comment is pretty relevant. An intro philosophy class will usually mention Descartes, who thought about this stuff 4 centuries ago.
4) I only said it's funny that grown adults take the simulation hypothesis seriously. Your statement was the one that extrapolated that to religion and found offense.
I was merely joking, it's simply pretty funny to imagine a full-grown world of self-aware actors developing inside the OpenAI plan and then debating about the simulation hypothesis.
Bostrom's formulation has a properly constructed hypothesis: see http://simulation-argument.com/simulation.pdf
Sure, but it is vastly interesting to think about, and imagine about and have meandering ideas about. There's probably also trappings of psychoanalysis in here somewhere.
Why? It is ontologically no different from 1) solipsism, a philosophical idea that even most philosophers considered worthless centuries ago, or more loosely 2) belief in a higher deity who created the world.
It's completely unfalsifiable. The answer to the question clarifies nothing about our understanding of the world [1] and furthermore has absolutely no impact whatsoever on how you ought to live your life.
[1] Even if you conclude we live in a simulation, we will never know for sure anything about the nature of the simulation or the nature of the world outside the simulation.