To the Atheist members of vgchartz

[WereKitten]

freebs2 said:

WereKitten said:

3) moral grounds

Even if you could force yourself to believe something or if you decided to act according to a given moral rule because you weighted the pros and cons of Pascal's wager, it would be an amoral choice, stemming uniquely from a logical pursuit of maximum satisfaction. A judeo-christian god, being the ultimate moral compass, would find such behavior hypocritical and devoid of real ethical meaning.

That's interesting, but I think this example is  useful to explain what is faith.

(btw. I'm not a religious person but I've studied, for some reasons long to explain, a bit of christian theology).

Since the ultimate message of Jesus life, and in the end the ultimate message of christianity is to donate everything you possess and yourself to others (donate even your life), considering the matter of donating your life from the Pascal's wager point of view wouldn't even make sense if you don't firmly believe in the existence of god and in the existence of something beyond life (you wouldn't have any pros). Then if you belive in god so firmly to be ready to give up on everything, it means you must consider its message ethical. If you're believing in god because you are scared of it, it means you are just trying to protect yourself and your integrity from god, any person in this situation won't be reasonably willing to give up on everything, including life.

I'm not sure I understood you entirely, but Pascal's wager has nothing to say about the morality of this particular choice (see e.g. wikipedia for the literal quoting out of the pensees: it really _is_ explicitely postulated in game theory terms).

I find that despicable in terms of my secular, humanistic morality; absurd and contradictory in terms of a religious and supernatural one. I guess it all goes back to Abraham's test and the trouble of defining good, but I don't have enough doublethinking circuitry in my brain to follow believers down that rabbit hole :)