The argument I hear most is that if at the end, you picked the wrong path of "no God" and there is a God, the judgement is severe. So many say to me, "Why not just go with God. If you are wrong, you don't lose anything in the end." Which, that rationale in itself, cheapens the value of God right there.
Don't these religious nutjobs see what is wrong with that argument?
Even Pascal himself, who postulated this whole thing for mathmatical demonstration, admitted to siding with belief in God even if you didn't believe, in hopes you eventually truly would believe....
Forget the fact that you "lose" the rewards you were promised, but look at all the sacrifices you made based on biblical morality and laws. You lost out on parts of your life and experiences, possibly even friends and family, because of your choice to believe in an idol you aren't even sure about. And on top of that, what if the doctrine you chose is wrong? Why would you make choices that might lead your life to more suffering than joy because it is the way God's law says it is to be? It doesn't make any sense to me at all.
Pascal's wager is a trick question. Why on earth do people still keep trying to use it to prove Christianity's benefit?