Pascal's wager inverted

Pascal's wager inverted or Lawrence's final wager is an argument that suggests that if one chooses to ignore theology and the possibility of an afterlife, it would be best to lead a highly ideal life, even taking into account that the "ideal life" would vary from person to person.

Intro

Pascal's wager, while effectively flawed, may be summarized as a number of outcomes:

If God exists, and one believes in God, then that person shall be infinitely rewarded through eternal bliss in Heaven.
If God exists, and one does not believe in God, then that person shall be infinitely punished through eternal damnation in Hell.
If God does not exist, and one believes in God, then that person has been moderately punished by failing to live his own life.
If God does not exist, and one does not believe in God, then that person has been moderately rewarded through a finite but likely self-serving life.

It would then be logical to conclude (assuming the 4 listed outcomes are the only possible outcomes) that it would be best to believe in God, as there stands to be an infinite gain. A counter-wager (or inverse wager) however, may be posed as a number of logical steps that take into account that only outcome 4 is guaranteed (or not based on uncertainties):

If a person decides that he does not care about his fate or the after-life, then it would be best to take the best outcome that can be guaranteed: a self-serving life.
If a person decides that he also does not care how long this self-serving life is (or believes that he will die tragically/suddenly), then the life in question shall be as decadent as practical.
The degree to which a life may be practically decadent can be severely improved by having a guaranteed and instant method of ending the said life.
Thus, by posing a counter-wager that God does not exist, Heaven is not a viable reward, and one's life may be instantly and absolutely ended, one may choose to live one's life (literally) as he damn well pleases (at the cost of the lifespan itself).

Flaws in Pascal's wager

While multiple flaws exist in Pascal's wager, the majority of the simple ones revolve around life, belief, the nature of belief, and the need for actual proof.

Flaw 1: Ability to believe

Pascal's wager assumes that it is possible to believe in God. However, the ability to truly and wholeheartedly believe in any specific theory may not exist from individual to individual. Said another way, a person could believe in God one second, and disbelieve the next, or be unable to believe at all.

This raises several issues. The first would be that Pascal's wager assumes that one can control one's beliefs; this is an issue in the case that this isn't possible for a person; said person wouldn't be able to participate in Pascal's wager. Due to the number of people trying to believe in God and allegedly failing, this is likely the case. Secondly, if this was the case, one may choose to repeatedly cycle between belief and disbelief. This would tie into Flaw 3: Nature of Christianity, as specific beliefs may not allow for such inconsistencies.

Flaw 2: Nature of afterlife

Pascal's wager assumes that there is absolutely no afterlife to gain in the third and fourth outcomes. To date, there has been no truly conclusive proof of an afterlife existing or not. In other words, there may be Heaven and Hell for the third and fourth outcomes.

Atheists tend to conclude that a kind and loving God would reward any good life, and therefore a life that is good and self-serving would still be rewarded with Heaven. While this conclusion is also in itself flawed, it also has yet to be disproved.

Flaw 3: Nature of Christianity

Pascal's wager, even if it is to be accepted, simply fails to specify the method for believing in God. (Christanity? Judaism? Islam? Hinduism?)

Even if it did specify, Christianity explicitly disallows the "lukewarm".