Thork is right about modern atheists. You can claim that you aren't part of the movement all you want, but when you start quoting Dawkins and Hitchens and (a new favorite, it seems) Krauss in your support of the evils of religion, you are a new atheist like it or not. And most modern atheists get a hard-on at the mere mention of any one of those names.
Dawkins is a jerk, you're correct. Hitchens was too. I'm not sure who Krauss is. Sorry I got snarky, but when someone snipes at my sexuality I get snippy. I know more LGBT people with religion than without, and contrary to Thork's assertion, I don't think most religions are necessarily anti-gay.
But yes. Let's not make this thread about Thork. Back to the topic at hand.
I don't think it's as simple as the Matrix or Tron. I think our simulation runs far deeper than both of those. In both of those pieces, the laws of physics in the simulations were at least approximations of the laws of physics in the "real" world, and I believe that we have at best a very rudimentary set of rules that we interpret as the laws of physics.
That we may be a simulation within a simulation is certainly possible, but that gets into truly untestable territory - though arguably the initial simulation hypothesis is largely untestable too.
I believe that we're a physical simulation curled up into a dimension containing four dimensional spacetime as we perceive it. There may be more dimensions curled up inside ours. I do not know. However, I do maintain that an infinite plane earth is the simplest way by far to curl up our reality along one of these "pocket" dimensions, so that much is clear.
Speculation, and speculation based on the laws of physics as given to us by our architects in particular, is likely only a shadow of the truth.