Did you see my post about the two religions with the worst Hells?
That may be one criteria on which to judge. It’s Catholicism and Sunni Islam.
Then compare the founders to see which one is more credible.
Mohammed was a warlord that married a 6 year old girl and promised his followers dozens of virgins in the afterlife.
That seems more likely to be a scam.
Yes indeed.
I had a nice list comparing Jesus and Mohammad on a lot of issues like that, it was quite revealing. Stuff like “Muhammad murdered people, had sex slaves and raped children” “Jesus never murdered anyone, didn’t have any sex slaves and never raped any children”.
.
@HumAnIze I would hazard a guess, that most people on the planet would not need to choose a religion first, because most people on the planet follow their indigenous religion that they were born into… unlike the great displaced, whom you must be referring to.
_
“there are 450 to 500 million positive atheists and agnostics worldwide (7% of the world’s population) with China alone accounting for 200 million of that demographic.”
Yep.
Jesus wins! 
As usually with you, I have zero idea what the fuck you are talking about.
This new site format stinks.
My point was that if one compares Jesus to Mohammad, Jesus is better.
Agreed on both counts.
What religion are you?
Do you think it’s better to Pascal’s Wager a religion with the best Heaven or worst Hell?
I don’t think Pascal’s wager even includes hell: https://www.reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/17drjfx/pascals_wager_hell_original_passage/
I think his whole point is that if you are truly interested in the meaning of life … if you acknowledge that hunger for meaning … you’ll investigate it with an open curiosity and follow the inquiry where it leads. At worst the hunger is not filled with anything that truly satisfies. But it’s at least possible you find satisfaction & true meaning. If you don’t even wager an investigation, you don’t get satisfaction at all.
Pascal mentioned Hell in “Pensees” a few times.
“Who has most reason to fear hell: he who is in ignorance whether there is a hell, and who is certain of damnation if there is; or he who certainly believes there is a hell, and hopes to be saved if there is?”
Right. Pascal is a prototypical existentialist. He advocates wagering finite existence on the possibility of eternal life. It seems to me that the best that could result in is an ethical agnosticism with whatever ritual formalism you think best thrown in for good measure. Without the grace of God, you’d just be going through the motions.
Pascal recommended going to Church and that it could result in eternal salvation, which would certainly be worth the effort. 
That supports what I just said. Going to church on the possibility of eternal life is going through the motions of Christianity without the spiritual reality of it. In itself it is agnosticism. And I know of people who profess this is what they’re doing. I suppose we could call them “Pascalians”. There are folks who send their children to church or religious school, so that they’ll get faith, even though they themselves don’t believe. This seems like a variety of the Pascalian way.
Pascal thought going to Church would be the beginning of a life long conversion process. The wager is meant to be a beginning.
Excuse me, but where did Pascal say that if you go to church you will be saved? Just curious. Let’s stick to the wager.
I’m going to propose a rephrasing that may register better to ears tuned to, say, Camus & Nietzsche:
What is worth living and dying for, such that if you forget it (or never see it), you have forgotten/missed the meaning or point of life, and therefore life (¡RIGHT NOW!) —to you— is completely meaningless HELL/misery (a restless heart)?
The wager is meant to be a beginning.
Agreed. Any meaning they observe or cultivate in the universe is ungrounded or ungroundable (sandcastles for the tide, for all they can see) because they deny or “table” acknowledgment of the ground.
There are still people who practice rituals for quasi-Pascalian reasons. But, in contemporary secular society, fewer seem to see the value of ritual observance. Hence the growth of the “Nones” for whom there is a disconnect between spirituality and religious institutions. What do you say to them?
.
This is where my previous post, comes in… 
“there are 450 to 500 million positive atheists and agnostics worldwide (7% of the world’s population) with China alone accounting for 200 million of that demographic.”
.
What does religious even mean, these days?
It can include being religious but not believing in/praying to a/any god or deity… even the Vatican has acknowledged this.
Many don’t go to church to appease a/any good, but to appease themselves.
I think that is a misinterpretation of the wager. He’s basically saying you are more likely to get the point if you wager that there is one rather than assuming there isn’t (and so definitely missing it)—despite all the obvious longing for one… You can totally see the obvious longing especially in those who deny the point exists. They either try to outperform the people who claim there is a point, or they act out in rebellious ways.