<bullshit>“Should God not exist, and a person believes in him, that person does not
lose anything because he/she will perish anyway; should God exist, though,
and a person does NOT believe, it is possible that he/she will be punished
for being faithless.”</bullshit>
_____________
I like what Robert M. Martin has to say about Pascal’s wager in his book There Are Two Errors . . . :
<snip>But consider the contrary reasoning of the same type.
There’s really very little evidence for the existence of God, and rational people harbour reasonable doubts about it. Surely a just God who values rationality wouldn’t punish people for being reasonable. He might even reward them for their careful and independent habits of thought. And he might even punish believers for their credulity—for their sloppiness of mind in going along with the herd, believing what there’s so little evidence for.
On the other hand, believing in truth is a good thing, its own reward. If there isn’t any God, non-believers are right, and believers wrong. . . .
• If you believe and God does exist—punishment for credulity
• If you believe and God doesn’t exist—misfortune of being wrong
• If you don’t believe and God exists—reward for rationality
• If you don’t believe and God doesn’t exist—benefit of being right.</snip>
Should you believe?
Either way, you’re better off being a non-believer.