Sntjohnny, I keep trying to make sense out of what your point is on the "agnostic/atheism" issue, and I cannot.  When I asked for clarification, you appeared to ignore me and to deny having quoted the passage that first appeared as a quoted passage in your post (not mine).  At least, I can't find a reference to it in anything that I have said in this thread, and I can't make any real sense out of your responses.

So I suspect that we have both misinterpreted each other.  The best thing to do at this point is to paraphrase what you think my argument is, or what you think is so important about the atheist/agnostic distinction in the Pascal's Wager argument.  How does that bear on your claim that Pascal's critics have misinterpreted him? Let's try to calm down and have a civilized discussion, ok?  If I have misunderstood you, please try to explain how.  If you ask me to go reread and reinterpret things that I have not drawn appropriate inferences from (by your lights anyway), there is no good reason to believe that I will suddenly come around to your perspective by rereading the same things.  You might achieve better results by restating or rephrasing your argument.  I have tried to explain a number of times why I think that your OP statement is wrong, and I have yet to see a substantive response to many of the points I made.