Sklansky has it backwards

[txag007]

David has said several times in the past that Christians believe what they do because facing the revelation that their beliefs are wrong would be too painful. I've been pondering this theory for a while, and I've come to the conclusion that he has it backwards. It's not the Christians who would suffer the most if their beliefs are wrong, but the non-believers.

I know this sounds very Pascal wager-ish, but please hear me out.

DS- (from a recent thread)
"It is a disease, similar to stoke victims who don't admit they are paralyzed or Multiple Personality sufferers (who were almost always horribly abused as children). It is cause by the brain's propensity to do whatever is necessary to prevent severe emotional pain."

Between those who believe in God and those who don't, who would suffer the most emotional pain if their beliefs were proven to be wrong? I think it's logical to assume that on average it would be the ones whose lifestyle would be affected the most.

What if Christians are proven wrong, and God is found to be nonexistent? What changes? Although it would undoubtedly be an emotionally trying time, many Christians lifestyles probably wouldn't change too much (in the way that we interact with others in society, etc.) They might even find new freedom in that many things they once considered wrong would not be so anymore.

If on the other hand the God of the Bible were proven to exist, many nonbelievers would have a problem. Suddenly, they are accountable to a higher being. Many of the actions that they once enjoyed are now considered wrong. On top of that, they have that Hell thing to worry about (since it now exists).

Which instance would cause the most "severe emotional pain"?