Your reasoning is flawed.

The concept you are discussing early in your statement is based on Pascal' wager, which basically reads like this: "It is better to believe in God and be wrong than to not believe in God and be right", and there is often a nice little chart that goes along with it, an example of which can be seen here:

The problem with this is that it is a false dichotomy, and an arrogant one at that. Rather than wording it as "god either exists or he does not exist", I would rephrase it as "the Christian god either exists or he does not exist". Under this reworded context it can be seen that the odds are actually not 50/50 as it first seemed. There are literally thousands of religions on this earth, and it is presumptuous to assume that only the Christian religion is the one worth considering.

If you think about how many other gods out there are "possible" based on how many religions there are (in hinduism alone there are something like 300 million), then you cannot actually say the odds are in your favor if you believe in god. There are so many to choose from that the odds are so much greater that you have chosen WRONG than anything else. And what if the real god or gods are jealous? What if they would resent you more for picking a fake god instead of not believing in any at all? There are too many possibilities.

I believe in science, and I cannot in good conscience believe or support the idea that any religion is a valid ideology because, the way I understand it, they conflict irreconcilably. Science isn't perfect of course, but filling in the gaps in our understanding with the explanation of god is, to me, irresponsible and lazy. So I reject it.