By the way, I've known about Pascal's Wager forever. I just didn't reference it as that. And I agree its a shallow argument but it sometimes helps people that can not think beyond the realms of logic and reason or physical rules and laws.
I agree with you, that Pascal's Wager is a shallow argument that is best used once you have left logic, reason, and reality behind.
What do I have to lose by rejecting Jesus? I lose the opportunity to limit myself for absolutely no reward, since Jesus doesn't exist. I lose the opportunity to artificially restrict myself and waste time on pursuits that will gain me nothing. I lose the chance to strengthen the very worst kind of tribalism (religion) that mankind has devised. I lose the fear of angering a capricious, vindictive, nasty, belligerent, and utterly unreasonable deity who could not possibly exist outside of the addled imagination of ancient man.
The people who fall back on Pascal's Wager rarely, if ever, encourage people to simply roll the dice and select any religion at all. They are specifically promoting their own religion, and they don't see it as a shot in the dark. So they are being disingenuous when they use that argument. If I'm going to use someone else's argument, I prefer that of Stephen Roberts: "I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.