Pascal's Wager is all about showing a flaw in Atheism - it looks at it from a gambler's perspective. Which choice yeilds the overall greatest expectation? To belive in God or not? Pascal summarized that believing in God has the edge, and that (not believing in God) has no advantage.

Pascal's Wager isn't interested in pointing out logical flaws, it merely presents the position that it is more profitable to be a believer, because there is more to gain. The parameters it establishes state that there is nothing to gain from atheism, and everything to lose; from religion it states there is everything to gain and nothing to lose. However it doesn't earn those parameters logically, it merely assumes them by starting the argument from the position that Christianity is the correct choice. It is missing a parameter, which is that you would have to select the CORRECT religion in order to gain the prize he is interested in, which is the perfect afterlife in heaven. You may even have to select the correct branch of religion, because particular sects sometimes state that all the other flavors of their religion are incorrect. It also incorrectly assumes that there is nothing to lose from religious belief, and nothing to gain from rejecting religious belief. In short, a fuller life on earth is available to those who aren't limited by sometimes-arbitrary religious rules. Religious believers are restricted from various behaviors like dancing, eating certain foods, appearing in public without covering your face, marrying the person you love if they aren't from the right background, accepting a subordinate position because of your gender or your caste, enjoying sexual behavior without damage to your concept of self and soul, etc. If a woman spends a lifetime being treated like dirt because she's female, suppressing all of her desires in the interest of an eternal reward, and then she doesn't get the eternal reward because she picked the wrong religion or because there just isn't a right one, then she has lost something. She lost the life she gave up in order to follow a religion that turned out to be false. This is a cost that is not mentioned at all by Pascal. It lastly assumes that a pragmatic selection based on potential profit will be as effective as a genuine selection based on personal feelings and ethics - who is to say that such people, who don't really accept religion but only mimic its trappings, will receive the prize? In short, it is a persuasive argument, but only if you make certain assumptions. It's not particularly logical.

Pascal's Wager has so many logical flaws that it completely fails to show logical flaws in anything, including Atheism. Pascal's Wager assumes that a Deity, if one exists, cares whether or not you believe in Him/Her/It, and that deciding to believe because you have more 'benefits' and less 'loss' is sufficient to gain this Deity's reward. Pascal's Wager assumes that this Deity will reward you for believing, and punish you for disbelief. Further, Pascal's Wager assumes that belief in a Deity is something one can "decide" to do, even if one is not convinced. Pascal further assumes that there is no loss associated with believing in Deity. Pascal's Wager appears to come from a thinly veiled reward/punishment theology (like Christianity). If one doesn't accept the underlying assumptions, the argument falls completely flat. None of the underlying assumptions is proven or universally accepted. Thus, Pascal's Wager does not point out any flaws in Atheism. Atheism is inherently logical through inductive reasoning. There is no evidence or proof of Deity. The concept of Deity has logical paradoxes, and is impossible. Thus, there is no Deity.

Pascal's wager shows an advantage to believing over not believing, in that neither can be proven until after death. If you bet that there isn't a God and there is, your screwed. If you bet that there is a God and there isn't, you lose nothing.

Pascal's Wager 'is' a logical flaw : P It fails to prove anything, it fails to suggest anything, and it fails to mean anything. ***** To be fair and answer your question in the sense you no doubt mean: Pascal's Wager says that the 'best bet' would be to believe in God, that way if he exists you gain an infinite profit, if he doesn't you lose nothing. If you -don't- believe in God and he exists, you suffer an infinite punishment, but if he doesn't exist you gain nothing. Basically this statement requires that you assume it is true for it to be true... It assumes that there is only one possible God to believe in (not that only one God exists, it assumes that you can only possibly believe in -one- God, you are either a follower of that God or an atheist), it assumes that everyone knows exactly what this God is, in order to believe in it, it assumes that that God rewards belief and punishes disbelief, etc. Really, it's just Pascal trying to give a rational reason to be a Christian... It fails quite significantly because Christianity is not the only religion and doesn't have anything in particular to make itself more likely to be true than any other religion.