Actually, I think it's a pretty good argument. At least my version of it is: Pascal's Wager Revisited. In short: There is the option to positively believe in a deity or not to. (There could be a middleground of 'agnosticism', but for our purposes we can consider that that does not constitute a 'positive belief' and thus qualifies as 'not beleiving'.) There are no 'penalties' -- hell, eternal damnation, misfortunes, etc -- for not believing. There are substantial rewards for believing. Eg, eternal life, peace of mind, source of morality, meaning of life, and the like. There is no requirement to 'devote your life' to 'serving' such a deity, although the option is there if you want it. The potential 'negatives' are 'opening the door' for further 'irrational beliefs' -- assuming belief in a deity qualifies as 'irrational' (I submit that it does not, however not discussing that for the moment) -- into your life and thus exposing yourself to the potential 'dangers' this may bring; being 'laughed at'; I can't think of any others, but feel free to let me know of any. The believer has everything that the non-believer does, plus more. Given a choice, a person is far better off believing in a deity than not believing. Your thoughts.