How would you feel about the argument that, while I can't prove god exists, you should give %30 of your income to the church anyway. IF there is no god, you've

How would you feel about the argument that, while I can't prove god exists, you should give %30 of your income to the church anyway. IF there is no god, you've still helped the world by funding the spread of his word. And if there is a god, you've saved your soul? Ok, wait, that's not a correct analogy. It would be correct if I was advocating that men with guns go around and force you to give up %30 of your income to the church and saying that forcing you to do it was justified because its like insurance, right? If the policies that the IPCC etc. are advocating are put into place, one estimate I've seen is that 100 million people will be killed as a direct result in the next 20-50 years due to increased starvation worldwide. (and that this is a "conservative" number where it likely would be 1 billion.) "cutting fossil fuel subsidies" is dishonest, because fossil fuels are not subsidized, they are highly taxed, and increasing those taxes will hurt poor people the most by driving up food costs, increasing starvation... remember the IPCC et. al want to do this globally. But there might be a god, right? So its worth it that they should die, right? (Just putting your argument in a different context so you can see the shape of it. I don't think you really want people to die, you probably think you're advocating for the less death alternative... but since your position is not grounded in science, you're ending up doing what the USSR did. They thought they were making a better society (or claimed they were) but they rejected science (specifically economics) and advocated policies that caused starvation.)