Wouldn't it be safer to just believe than risk going to hell?

Wouldn't it be safer to just believe than risk going to hell?

No.

This question is a version of "Pascal's Wager"^[1].

The basis of this question is basically a risk-assessment plot. Given the possibilities and choices, what's the best action one can take?

Traditionally, it's represented something like this:

Clearly, from this plot, the safest course of action is to believe, since it's either positive or neutral. Hedge your bets.

Unfortunately, this argument makes a plethora of assumptions that would make the decision process much more vague and ambiguous than this oversimplified argument presents.

• It assumes that the correct god is chosen (gods hate it when you worship the wrong god).
• It assumes that the god doesn't just let everyone in.
• It assumes that the god doesn't let the good people in, regardless of belief.
• It assumes that everyone doesn't automatically go to hell.
• It assumes that the skeptical, intellectually honest people aren't the ones specifically let into heaven.
• It assumes that who gets into heaven isn't random.
• It's assuming that you can fool the god, and he won't detect that you're using him as an insurance policy, and who becomes angry at you.

...and so on. Additionally, it's factually incorrect that not believing is neutral at best, and believing is neutral at worst.

• Non-believers won't have religious doctrine or dogma repressing their ability to enjoy life, such as enjoying their sexuality or dictating who one must marry, etc. (unless they're being oppressed under Theocratic rule)
• Non-believers are less likely to waste their lives waiting for an afterlife, because they don't tend to believe in one. If there's everlasting paradise waiting for us after we die, this life becomes little more than a waiting room, and there's less pressure to make the best of this life as possible. If Heaven is a lie, then that time wasted waiting for it, or working towards going there, such as dutifully doing what you think God wants you to do (instead of living your life how you want).
• Atheists won't be brainwashed by religious dogma/indoctrination into thinking that they're worthless scum, ruining relationships and raising the next generations with more of the same. For instance, religious homosexuals are more likely to be driven into being suicidal because their religious upbringing teaches that homosexuality is immoral/sinful. ^[2]
• Atheists aren't as likely to tithe 10% of their income (unless they're closeted and still going to church) to support what is essentially an entertainment industry (Religion), where they're supporting the career of someone who is being paid to stand at the front of the room and make false statements.
• Out atheists aren't going to be tricked into spending over five months of their lives sitting in pews (1 hour a week for 75 years).

The bottom line is that the best thing one can do is be intellectually honest, evidence driven, and skeptical. The best decisions are made that way in every other aspect of life.

If a god exists, and frowns upon a person for not just believing without evidence, then that's not a god deserving of worship, anyway. We would consider this selection process as immoral.

Listed below is a revised risk-assessment plot of possible choices. This focuses only on whether there is at least one god. The problem is that we're guessing about whether there is a heaven or hell, and any attributes thereof, whether there is any kind of god, and any attributes thereof. Ultimately, the decision process is based on complete ignorance of what's really true, and becomes virtually impossible to arrive at an accurate decision.