Pascal's Wager - Is fun worth the risk?

1. Pretending to believe in God, in order to end up in heaven, is transparent deception to God, worse or equal than being an honest atheist.
   
2. Believing in God primarily in order to end up in heaven and avoid Hell is entirely selfish, deteriorating the benevolence or selflessness of all good acts you do.
   
3. All possible creator variants other than Christian (or is it Jewish) God, make Pascal's wager start to backfire hard as they'd be inclined to punish ypu for believing in the fake/wrong god.
   
4. If God is such a deceptive trickster that he never once probes himself and lets you tely on tbe same level of deluded hope as a schizophrenic has with their dekusions or hallucinations, is this the kind of God you trust would be true to the Bible and put you in heaven? anyway?

Pretending to believe in God, in order to end up in heaven, is transparent deception to God, worse or equal than being an honest atheist.

Believing in God primarily in order to end up in heaven and avoid Hell is entirely selfish, deteriorating the benevolence or selflessness of all good acts you do.

All possible creator variants other than Christian (or is it Jewish) God, make Pascal's wager start to backfire hard as they'd be inclined to punish ypu for believing in the fake/wrong god.

If God is such a deceptive trickster that he never once probes himself and lets you tely on tbe same level of deluded hope as a schizophrenic has with their dekusions or hallucinations, is this the kind of God you trust would be true to the Bible and put you in heaven? anyway?

Wouldn't your all powerful god see through the fraud?

First, if there was a God who rewarded atheists and punished Christians, such God would have to be immoral since most of Christians have similar or better morality than what atheists have.

Second, the greatest religions on Earth are against atheism.

Option 3) is more likely than option 2), since moral and reasonable God is more likely than immoral and unreasonable God who prefers atheism.

However, if a person is an atheist, it does increase his chances of being immoral.

We've seen nothing substantive to show a god must be moral or reasonable. Plus, theres a huge elephant in the room being ignored here: the Christian deity doesn't meet this standard either. 

Not being a Christian increases the odds of not following Christian morality, which isn't the same thing as being immoral.

Wouldn't your all powerful god see through the fraud?

God would know, of course, that the only reason you are refusing to sin is because you have considered the possibility of God.

Can we say that unreasonable God is as likely as reasonable God? Because our world has consistent laws which imply that if it is created by God, it is created by reasonable God.

There is no logical reason to think atheism is a correct path.

There is no logical reason for reasonable God to reward those who thought something for no logical reason. 

Can we say that immoral God is as likely to exist as moral God?

Even immoral God would like to be praised,

Which would you choose: immorality or morality?

If your answer is morality, then you cannot please an immoral God, but only a moral God.

Christian morality is the morality which would be supported by moral God. Moral God would be against killing. Christian morality is against killing. The rest of morality relates to that.

A world with consistent laws does not necessarily require a creator - reasonable or otherwise.

Sure there is. The absence of expected evidence for X is good reason not to accept the existence of X.

Atheism is not about belief on little or no evidence - it's about not believing because thats what the evidence supports.

I don't know what you're basing this claim on. I think you're dubiously assuming an unnatural being would have human preferences and desires.

Just to be clear, you're holding up as an example of a 'moral god' a being that is thought to require human sacrifice (of his son) and cannibalism as a pathway to heaven for humans? ...the same one that prescribes infinite torture for finite wrongdoing?

If that is "moral", there's a fair chance different moral standards result in something more sensical and less cruel.

The Bible shows plenty of example of the Christian deity condoning or participating in killing (murder). Again, if that is your standard of morality, falling short of it is not all bad.

If atheism is right, both Christians and atheists end the same.

If Christianity is right, then most of the atheists go to hell to burn.

Pascal's wager is a probability based argument that says that we should believe in God to increase our chances of happy afterlife.

God just puts everyone in Heaven without discrimination.

Suppose I hold a belief that if you die, you will be happier than any Christian will be in the afterlife

According to this argument, everyone should believe me

The fact the dominant religion is not like this is in itself a reason why this argument is not only theoretically unsupported but incorrect to the population.

What if GOD was actually omni-sensible?

Is that a slight shift in your thinking?

A world with consistent laws does not necessarily require a creator - reasonable or otherwise.

The argument was about reasonable vs. unreasonable creator, not about creator vs. no creator.

Sure there is. The absence of expected evidence for X is good reason not to accept the existence of X.

If there is a good reason to accept the existence of God, then God should be accepted.

Atheism is not about belief on little or no evidence - it's about not believing because thats what the evidence supports.

As explained, there is no evidence that supports the lack of belief in God.

Your position implied that there is immoral God who prefers atheists who mock him. God who has no human preferences is possible, but God who has some human preferences is also possible.

You are dodging the question, but I will assume that you would prefer to obey God who is moral, given that there is 50/50 chance of God being moral or immoral.

Christian God is obviously moral. It is moral to ban killing. Christian God banned killing.

Killing is good if it results in saving lives. Killing done by God of the Bible resulted in saving lives. Killing done by God of the Bible is good.

"A world with consistent laws does not require a creator" undermines you're explanation for why a creator must be reasonable.

Thats not what I said. I do not have good reason to accept the existence of a creator. Not to run down a rabbit hole, but I was simply trying to correct your misapprehension of atheism - it's not a competing claim to theism, but a null position.

And there doesn't have to be - that's the point. There needs to be evidence for belief. There does not need to be evidence for non belief.  Atheism is the latter.

Possible is not a stable foundation. It's speculation, and I see no reason to entertain it.  There is no legitimate "therefore" when youre multiple layers into imagination

I choose to do the right thing. That does not mean do what someone else tells me. It does not mean follow a bad example of morality either.

My point was simply that the deity you're holding up as the standard of morality is not moral. That throws the whole thought experiment askew.

...and then proceeded to condone and participate in exceptions. I question the moral label you're trying to attach to this deity.  I don't believe you have fully integrated the Bible into your god-concept.

If God is moral because he banned killing, then violating that rule makes him immoral. You can't have it both ways.

Not exceptions. Killing that prevents killing upholds the "thou shall not kill", it is not an exception to it.