I did read it. I replied because your version of Pascal’s Wager didn’t include the many ways that it has been refuted.
Yours didn't either, although I expect there was more to it on Wikipedia or wherever you went to get it.
But then it is not particularly difficult or complicated, is it? I can not go to the store by golfing. I can avoid the store by watching TV. I can even avoid the store by going to church. How I avoid the store doesn't change that I wasn't there.
The claims of scripture regarding God and Jesus Christ are accurate or they are not. You may choose not believe them. You may decide not to find out what they are. You may choose to believe in Krishna. It doesn’t matter, and that is what you seem to be trying to sweep aside with a detour from the last paragraph of my post. The logic is not refuted by adding deity variants and assuming equality of possibility. The refutation ignores the reality that the evidence in favor of scripture can be examined, even if you choose not to. Simon Greenleaf, thankfully, chose to examine the evidence.
When you stand before God I expect you will be free to explain the refutation of Pascal’s wager in your own defense. At that point you will have nothing to loose.
Since I have already discussed the first two I may as well address the last two. Richard Dawkins’ argument is, frankly, both silly and stupid, in essence arguing that one can throw away one’s life for God to essentially have no “reward” at the end. His own contempt for christianity is obvious in his quote.
While other’s experience may be different, and could be discussed, my own experience has been that the times when I am living “for God” are the times that my life has been the most pleasurable.
The last (4th) of the “many” refutations is “the assumption that one can choose belief”. I don’t even need to discuss this one since you have made a conscious choice not to believe, and you know it.