It seems like every other day BB is defending another questionable idea involving God. My reasoning against Pascal's wager is simple: The sort of god who would dole out infinite rewards and punishments primarily on the basis of whether or not someone is convinced of something over a brief period is morally abhorrent and so should be resisted on principle, and intuitively that sort of god seems far more likely to be a human invention for manipulating people (as in, whether or not such a god existed, I would expect some humans to have come up with it eventually as a tool of manipulation), so in the interest of not being manipulated it should be again be rejected on principle.