The apathy I talk about in the article applies only to the realistic options, after the appeals to supernatural magic and the theological gambits (including Pascal's wager) have been dispensed with on philosophical and scientific grounds. I have many dozens of articles on Medium that deal with theistic arguments on that level, although not many specifically on Pascal's wager.

That wager should offend anyone with genuine religious sensibilities. The notion that God would reward someone who flipped a coin in that way, or who would punish someone for failing to flip it is grotesque. Our higher, moral obligation would be to oppose a deity that worked like that.

Don't you think your religion can pass the test of rational scrutiny or that you could show why religion's irrationality would be irrelevant? Do you really want to say it comes down to a crass gamble?