I still often hear many theist using pascal's wager to convince me of belief in belief [not the existence of god] and I dont see how they dont realise it to be a very inadequate ploy - for one it can be used for anything, from islam to pastafarianism - thus rendering it obselete or it can go backwards - 1. God exists - You believe - You live happily, go to heaven You dont believe - You live happily, god forgives you [being all-loving] and go to heaven. 2. God doesn't exist - You dont believe - Its a non-issue You believe - If you become a martyr [abortion dr. killer, jihadist, etc], you blow your only chance to live a rich, fulfilling, long life for an idea. See, pascal's wager cuts both ways - its just not an adequate argument for belief in belief.