Pascal's Wager Revisited

[Esquilax]

Now let's call Shatheism or Sha the doctrine that there is no eternal life after death, and Shbelief or Shb, that there is.

Except there's more than just those two choices, isn't there? Pascal's Wager functions by lying and pretending there's only two, but that isn't true because all of those "Shbeliefs" take great pains to be mutually exclusive; if you pick one, you're going to hell in all the others and vice versa. If I believe in Catholicism and Islam turns out to be true, then I lose exactly the same as an atheist would. And hell, since we're discussing unverified beliefs completely divorced from everything we know about reality we also aren't justified in merely considering existing religions either; all the dead religions come back into play, and in fact an infinity of minutely different belief systems, all with the same eternal punishment, become equally as likely as whatever the hell you believe. You have absolutely no justification for presupposing that the only belief system worthy of going into this equation is your own, and the moment we begin to consider Pascal's Wager fairly, it falls apart, as every risk is exactly equal no matter what we pick.

If one is unsure whether to pick Sha and Shb, one should consider that if Sha is true, he loses little in preparing himself for "heaven" (at the most, since under Sha, a good man becomes equal to an evil man and to zero in death, he may lose some ephemeral advantages of being evil)

Yeah, unlike you, I don't behave morally because I think there's some heavenly reward in it for me, I do it because it's the right thing to do, so I don't have the same gnawing worry that you seem to have, that I may have wasted my opportunity to be a bad person. I'm not chomping at the bit to be one in the first place, unlike seemingly every christian who phrases "not being a completely immoral asshole" as a bad thing they're disappointed for not getting.