The Better Response

You said

Please do not think I was in any way threatening you at all. That was by no means the intent or purpose. Nothing could be further from the truth. Believe me, I would not threaten you at all.
All I was trying to do was give us further thought on the idea of survivability. I think what you said about Pacsls Wager fitting into other religions adds to that. Though most religions don't talk about hell, the application for us is the same. If we are working off of a "survivability" standard, then which religion or belief system makes the most sense to trust in for the long run?
Anyway, please do not think I was trying to threaten you. If that is the way it came off then I apologize.

I'm not at all offended, friend. From a survivability standard, I think Islam makes more sense for you than christianity. So if you are going to use that as your standard, I think you should immediately convert to Islam.

Think of it like you do insurance. I could go out and buy fire insurance on my house. That would only be a wise purchase for me if I knew that my house was going to burn down in a fire, though. If I somehow had foreknowledge that there would be no disaster, or that my house was going to be in a flood, fire insurance would be kinda silly, wouldn't it?

You propose the christian god as a form of insurance against the fires of Hell(or at least Pascal did). But what if the christian version isn't at all what I need to worry about? What If I meet Allah after I die, or Kali, or Chthulu? What if I met a god that doesn't match any description either of us knows about that values adherence to the truth as one understands it over people seeking fire insurance, and I insured my eternity in the fires of his/her hell by doing the very thing you are encouraging me to do? There are other potential disasters I can fret over as a homeowner if i am wont to do that; buying insurance against fire gives me no protection against all the other things that might go wrong.

The insurance policy that you are suggesting that I buy doesn't cover all the possible eventualities, much less the primary one that the evidence of nature supports, that we just simply exist and should make the best of what we have. Even if I was swayed by fire insurance arguments, how confident are you that your god would really be all that pleased with someone that really wasn't there because he believed in him or loved in him so much as the person simply wanted fire insurance protection?

Anyway, that is the best analogy I can think of off the top of my head to explain why I think of Pascal's wager as being flawed.

This probably counts as a better answer to your post than the one I made previously. I just thought we had already covered this ground at some point in past discussions and was trying to be cute in my response. Sometimes my attempts at humor fail to be funny.

Do well, Jason.