OK, Vamp: I just wanted to check which side of Pascal's wager you were taking before I commented.
Pascal's wager presupposes that there is an alternative to believing in God that carries some sort of negative punishment or occurrence. No doubt this supposition was based upon the Christian concept of going to hell if you don't believe.
But if I were a human being raised by atheists, and had no prior knowledge of any God concept or religious concept, would I come to that conclusion?
Let us say, I did come to the conclusion that there was some God-like creator of all things, out there somewhere. Why would I then automatically assume that he had instituted a punishment for not believing in him/her/it? Why would I assume there was an after-life? Why would I assume the Bible was its word?
That is the false dilemma in Pascal's wager. The entire argument is predicated on there only being two alternatives: not believing in God, or believing in the God of the Christians and the prevailing Christian theology of the time. When in fact, there are dozens if not hundreds of other permutations.
If I came to the conclusion that God exists, why would I conclude that any of the stories told about him by other humans are true? If I concluded one must surely be true, which one would it be? What if I choose the wrong story? Will I still be punished by all the other permutations of God that exists? If I choose Jehovah, will I be destroyed by Allah? If I choose Allah, will I be destroyed by Vishnu?
Wouldn't an all-knowing creator know I didn't truly believe but was only saying I did just so I didn't become eternal toast? How do I sincerely convince myself beyond all doubt, when in fact, I do have strong doubts? is it even possible to knowingly delude oneself?
Surely you can see the dilemma of a sincere atheist who wishes a death bed conversion just to hedge my bets?