Really Pascal?

Did you think I was gonna buy that tripe? I mean, the sheer selfishness of it, deluding yourself into something you don't really believe for the sake of an eternal salvation that has only a slight possibility of actually existing. It seems almost lunatic, to force yourself to go along with an idea you find completely unreasonable on the off-chance it might actually be true. If that's a good idea, should we also all wear aluminum hats on the mere chance that the aliens really can take over our minds without them. By Pascal's reasoning, this would be a terrific idea. The aluminum hats don't hurt anyone (besides making you look really silly), and if the aliens really will take over you'd be screwed without one, right. Why take that chance?
Even accepting that going against all reason and common sense to believe in God is a great thing, which God do we choose? Pascal says the Christians have the right idea, but who's to say Allah or Buddha or even Zeus isn't the better choice. I haven't yet heard a decent argument for Christianity over the other billions of religions.
And besides, as Blackburn says, who's to say God really does reward belief in himself? I have a little trouble accepting that a completely perfect God would be vain enough to require that people go against their own common sense (which He apparently gave them) and attend mass once a week. Or spiteful enough to send them to Hell if they don't. Aren't vanity and spite considered flaws, even in religion? And God is supposed to be perfect and flawless right? So, then, why would he exhibit purely human traits.
I think a perfect God would be more likely to send people who were decent, tried to do the right thing, and followed their gut instinct to heaven, than people who lied about their faith in the hopes of getting rewarded. Doesn't seem like a very noble or good thing to me, even if you eventually delude yourself into true blind faith.