Wat. Everyone seems to interpret numerous things in different ways, and I'm just using Pascal's wager as it was intended originally, how is that hard to understand?
Pascal's wager only refers to the existence of God. Not to any belief specifically. Just because people use it as "You should believe what I believe because it's a bad risk otherwise" doesn't invalidate Pascal's wager. It's a good argument saying that people should look into religion more openly, putting their biases to the side, at least temporarily.
I think we're confusing each other so I'm just going to start all over, ignoring anything you or I have said previously.
Pascal's Wager says that if one believes in god, but is wrong, they lose nothing, but if they don't believe in god, and are wrong, they lose everything. Therefore, the safe option is to believe in god.
The problem with this is that there are multiple religions who say something along the lines of "you shall have no other gods before me." If I believe in religion A, I lose according to religion B. If I believe in religion B, I lose according to religion A. There is therefore no 100% safe course of action.
That's the only point I've been trying to make
people don't know the Bible anywhere NEAR as well as they think they do.
Christians and non-Christians alike.
Though I'm assuming that's what you meant when you used the broad term "people"