Pascal's Wager is Flawed

I'll take your position of time into account as I respond to your countpoints, giving you the benefit of the doubt whenever applicable or neccesary.You claim subset A is flawed, but you then proceed to ignore the points I presented within that point. Perhaps an expansion of what I was getting at will help. I had said we can rule out any God's we know that were created. I say this because they were man-made. It wasn't that God came to man proclaiming his existence, it was a man proclaiming a God's existence. This is very different from Abrahamic religions which claim that God is the ultimate authority of what they say, and it is not their own message.You say subset B is not flawed, but it follows the same logic that subset A does. Just like Vedic religions, we know ancient mythologies were both created by the men to explain things they didn't understand, and, just as the name implies, mythology in nature.You claim many other mutually exclusive religions can borrow from my argument, but I do not believe this to be true. I understand that you may not have had time to create an example, but this also does bring void to your point. In my original argument I wrote the phrase "No other (Book/Person" 8 times, each having mulitple points within each use of the phrase. No other religion can claim what I just claimed, thus the phrase "No other..."The whole point of Christianity is Salvation from our alleged sin problem. Therefore, the only doctrine of primary important is Soteriology - The Study, or Theology, of Salvation. If, as I stated, they all make the same general claims as to Salvation, then the basic don't really matter. The purpose of the wager is not to define what specific doctrines of sects you follow, it is to bring you to the umbrella that is Christianity itself."Many atheists including myself want to believe in a heaven or hell, to think there could be something after we die. But we cannot, for, to counteract a later point of yours, we truly cannot force ourself to believe something."Believe it or not, we all have the same evidence. We have the same evidence for God, for his Creation, for the accounts of Scripture, for the age of the Earth, and for its' history. Unfortunately, this evidence can be read in many different ways. Did you know Christianity isn't a blind faith? It actually makes complete sense in today's modern scientific world. There is absolutely no conflict between the Bible and the World. The only thing that is different is where we start. If we start from the worldview of the Bible, everything fits perfectly and makes sense. I'm leading into a topic for another debate altogether, but this is important to understand. You don't force yourself to believe something that is completely illogical, (That I agree is hard, if not impossible) you have to choose to look at our world and evidences a certain way."Although you may lose nothing from being a Christian if God is real in terms of the afterlife (unless it is Allah or the Flying Spaghetti Monster), you still lose plenty in life. And I would rather not die with those life terms."To this I'll simply ask - What's more important? Eternity or Transient? To me, I feel like I'd rather be safe Eternally (even safe from possibly nothing) than be safe Transiently. (with the possibility of eternity coming back to bite me still on the table)"I could not truly believe in a God or have true divine faith. So if we make a descision because our chances are better, not because we truly believe, we shall still be punished."As stated before, this isn't a call to blind faith, it's a call to change your perspective. As I surrendered before, I agree that you can't force yourself to believe something totally illogical, but that's not what this wager, or Christianity for that matter, is calling you to do.Thank you for taking the time, as valuable and scarce as it seems to be at the moment, to further address this debate topic. I sincerely hope you'll be able to respond again, to which I look forward with anticipation.