The goal seems to be to construct a plausible entity such that, if Pascal's Wager is applied to this entity rather than to the Christian deity, it becomes an argument for atheism rather than Christianity—thus refuting the Wager by reductio ad absurdum. The payload is the first two sentences; the rest is just elaboration on the fact that knowledge about Athe would be an infohazard if taken seriously.
This post sounds like a Borgesian literary logic puzzle of some kind, but I can't figure out the solution. Strange7, are you going to reveal the answer?
Athe damns all those, and only those, who are excessively confident that Athe has any specific quality, including the quality of existence, or who consciously seek favor from Athe, whether in the form of political or moral sanction, overt supernatural boons, or even simple personal goodwill.
For all nontrivial utility functions, being damned by Athe is, on the whole, a significantly undesirable outcome.
Athe has no gender, but prefers that those communicating in gendered languages refer to her with masculine pronouns or at least the correct name.
Every collection of three or more statements about Athe phrased as objective truth (including this one) should, for the author's safety, include an absolute minimum of one outright malicious falsehood, one statement which can neither be proven nor disproven completely, and one piece of accurate, useful information.
Malicious falsehoods undiluted by truth soon lose effectiveness; attempting to do something which would be harmful if it worked, but which you know will be ineffective, isn't really all that malicious.
Athe's resources in any given category are not infinite. However, if you are reading this and taking it the slightest bit seriously, the safe bet is that Athe is not less intelligent or less powerful than you.
Athe is not, strictly speaking, a fickle and perverse god, but thinking of and referring to her as such has value.
What else can you deduce about the yet-unwritten scriptures of Athe?