Your last paragraph is, essentially, a re-wording of Pascal's Wager. This has been refuted in multiple ways, among them:
1) Since there have been many religions throughout history, and therefore many potential gods, some assert that all of them need to be factored into the wager, in an argument known as the argument from inconsistent revelations. This would lead to a high probability of believing in the wrong god, which destroys the mathematical advantage Pascal claimed with his Wager. Denis Diderot, a contemporary of Voltaire, concisely expressed this opinion when asked about the wager, saying "an Imam could reason the same way". J. L. Mackie notes that "the church within which alone salvation is to be found is not necessarily the Church of Rome, but perhaps that of the Anabaptists or the Mormons or the Muslim Sunnis or the worshipers of Kali or of Odin."
2) Pascal's Wager suffers from the logical fallacy of the false dilemma, relying on the assumption that the only possibilities are:
1. a benevolent god exists and punishes or rewards according to one's belief, or
2. a benevolent god does not exist.
God could either be malevolent or not reward belief. In this view, a benevolent god, by definition, would give priority to the belief of the individual in determining rewards or punishments, rather than basing rewards on the basis of the individual's actions, such as rewarding kindness, generosity, humility or sincerity. Perhaps instead god rewards honest attempted reasoning and indeed might punish blind or feigned faith.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_wager#Criticisms
Fair enough, and thanks for the response, but I covered that. Did you read it or just blow by in order to copy in text?