Since I posted this in the first place my take on it as an Atheist is that there is no god and I am therefore correct but as a scientist I allow for the slim chance that new data will present itself that will totally overturn the theory that Atheism is founded upon - There is no proof of a god.
The problem I have with an omnipotent and omniscient being is that if such a being exists then my best hope is that it is indifferent since it will not judge me and torture me for my past 'sins' whatever that should amount to but being all knowing and all powerful there's going to be some shit going down, just saying.
Ditto for the unjust/cruel/hateful god (ask an Evangelical for a more detailed description of their god for further info) then that god is going to fuck everybody up and in more than six ways to Sunday. Even if such a being made its presence know in a physical manner, and even if I had the courage to not bend the knee to such a horrible deity, it would still know what my true thoughts were and what was in my heart - definitely gonna feel the burn in a big way.
A just/kind god might cut me some slack and grant me some time off for good behavior but I'm still not getting off with just a slap on the wrist, clearly better than unjust/cruel god but not as good as no god in the first place or the god who just doesn't give a shit.
I'm going to stick with the no god theory until it can be proven different.

The great irony here being that both wagers are from a Christian perspective only.

Pascal’s from someone raised in a Christian culture, who guesses it could be true, and Smith’s from someone raised in a Christian culture who guesses it likely isn’t. So in both cases, they are just betting on what they already surmise is likely to be true - reason having little to do with it because their knowledge base didn’t extend beyond their own culture’s assumptions.

Noam Chomsky said if you had asked his Jewish grandfather if he believed in God, he wouldn’t have known what you were talking about. Same goes for many Buddhists.

Reason can work only with the knowledge is has. It can’t take into account what it doesn’t know.

A wager is a bet. It is the act of
staking something of value on something unknown. If the unknown were known, no bet would be necessary.

Bets aren’t based on reason. They are based on desperation at the lack of knowledge.

No one has full knowledge.

Bet as you see fit.

Comfort yourself by saying you used reason. Believing you know is more comforting than knowing you don’t.

Betting on whether God exists is something people who are culturally Christian do. No matter which way they bet, or how much reason they use.

And, the reverse Pascal's wager. Even if there was a god who supported just one particular religion, and chose to save only its members, how would you know which to pick ? Which is a variant on four.

Epicurus had this better expressed millenniums ago.

I like it. Evolution demonstrates Christianity and it's God are BS. The residual proposition of a creator god fails because we can never know, and positing such a God doesn't yield new nor useful information.

George Smith died this year at the age of 73.
He was a Libertarian, associated with the Cato Institute.
[en.wikipedia.org]

I have often used this argument (to point 3 I had never thought of point 4) when god botherers are trying to convince me that I am going to burn in hell. I tell them that I am a good person who tries very hard not to make others live worse off, if their god will only accept me if I kowtow and worship it then it is a very fragile god and not worth worrying about.
Never knew it had a name

Whoops said I was a god person when I meant to write good. Freudian or what?

That's pretty much my stance. I'm not wasting my time and energy worshipping something that may or may not be there -- seems foolish to me. I'd rather spend my time and energy doing what I feel in my heart and mind is right. And if I'm judged for that somehow someday, so be it. Too many wrong turns and detours from reality, without employing common sense first.

Interesting thoughts. I like and agree with them.

Reason is as useful as knowledge is complete.

Can't fault the logic.