I was very disappointed by the first example I clicked on. They explained Pascal's Wager, but presume one possible religion that may or may not be true. They th

I was very disappointed by the first example I clicked on. They explained Pascal's Wager, but presume one possible religion that may or may not be true. They then get quite evasive in comments when asked about this, eventually saying they only intended their argument to be persuasive to people who believe something like "70% chance no god, 30% chance there's a specific God from a specific religion". Sure, but that's boring. I also suspect they're wrong that that's how a significant number of atheist-leaning people think.