To be(lieve) or not to be(lieve)

An argument was brought to my attention that while not wholly applicable to the ongoing discussion on religion here, I find, none the less, to be important to address. Specifically it relates to Pascal's wager. Read the site if you want to fully understand it, but the general idea is that you are better off believing in god than in not.

First, though I've been criticizing, and will continue to do so to, the many religions I have not nor will say that god does not exist. I am saying that these religions can be marked as "true","false" or "indeterminate" but also that such a judgment does not in any way effect an argument about the existence or nature of god or any god-like being.

For the most part I agree that since no rational argument as yet has determined the truth about the existence of god or even provided good suggestion as to which is the way to go, that practical and suggestive arguments do tend to the idea that it is in fact better (that is more personally beneficial) to believe in god then to not.

However, being argumentative as I am I will make a brief statement to encourage debate. Specifically, that if belief in god leads one to a religious system that is false or that encourages or allows behavior which is harmful then indeed belief in god can be more harmful than lack of belief. As example I would point to the doomsday and suicide cults which have been in the popular news over the many years such as the heaven's gate cult.

In any case however the argument again comes down to the system of belief that is adopted being the true culprit while an overall and general belief in god did not in fact cause the harm.

So I feel I've now addressed the argument and left open a debate both for and against it, just to make things difficult. After this: ever onward and upward.