We must get rid of the “fear of God” and the archaic laws, described in the ancient books. When we look at the world's conflicts, mostly based on religious intolerance and see the fundamentalists’ attitude in North America, we realize it is most urgent to develop moral standards on a non-believers base. Some readers have argued that humans have a choice to believe or non-believe in a God and that therefor it is “safer” to believe and avoid eternal damnation than it is not to believe. This line of reasoning is called “Pascal’s Wager.
Pascal's Wager is an argument in apologetic philosophy which was devised by the seventeenth-century French philosopher, mathematician, and physicist Blaise Pascal (1623–1662). It posits that humans all bet with their lives either that God exists or does not exist. Given the possibility that God actually does exist and assuming the infinite gain or loss associated with belief in God or with unbelief, a rational person should live as though God exists and seek to believe in God. If God does not actually exist, such a person will have only a finite loss (some pleasures, luxury, etc.).
See also www.arc-t.org/arc-tiquities/debates-pascal.html
There are several fallacies to this argument, and it is considered one of the weakest reasons to believe, both by non-Christians as well as some Christians. Please note that not all of these fallacies will necessarily apply in every case.
Fallacy One: It assumes that there is only one god which can be believed in, the Christian one. This is not true, since there are a plethora of gods that have been believed throughout the millennia. This would have to be applied to each and every one of those gods to be true, and this would clearly be impossible, due to the clashing natures of many of the said gods.
Fallacy Two: It assumes that simply wagering on [the Christian] God will buy one entrance into Heaven. While this may be so, the Wager does not instill a belief, it instills an appearance of a belief. Since the god in question is presumed to be all-knowing, he would be able to tell a false from a true belief. Therefore, the belief from the Wager would not qualify should belief be the requirement for entrance into Heaven.
Fallacy Three: It creates a moral dilemma. You, by using this, are sending the most dedicated humanitarians, who just happen to not be Christian, to Hell, while you set a place in Heaven for those mass-murders who happen to be Christian. Since [the Christian] God is supposed to be a loving god, how then could he entertain the embodiment of hatred, yet turn away the embodiment of love?
Fallacy Four: It ignores too many alternate possibilities - some of which are addressed by existing religions, and some which are not. Some examples: A God could reward on criteria which seem meaningless to us - hair colour, taste in clothes, music etc. or A God might not be concerned with humans at all - the universe could be here for hydrogen for all we know. Or God may even reward those who don't believe.
Fallacy Five: It assumes any person is overly fearful of death to be worried about it being a conclusion to their life.
Fallacy Six: It assumes that a belief in God is all that is needed, when many Christians would disagree and would suggest that there are "guidelines" that you should live by (and that God requires you to live by if your belief is sincere). If these guidelines require a change on your part (for example: No sex before marriage, no smoking, denying you are a homosexual, not marrying a non-Christian, etc.), then it could be argued that you have lost something if the Christian God turns out to not exist.
Hope this has been helpful and get more people on the bandwagon of getting rid of the belief in the supernatural and help to develop a better world based on reality and not fantasy.