NationStates Jolt Archive

now, for the purposes of the poll, here are definitions.

theist = belief in any god or gods. i don't care if it's yahweh, allah, zeus, brahmin, whatever. it doesn't even have to be a specific god... you can have your own personal god.

agnostic = you either don't know whether there is a (or many) god(s), perhaps you think it's not possible to know, perhaps you simply don't care and don't know.

atheist = you don't think that there is a (or many) god(s).

note that neither the atheist or agnostic options rule out belief in an afterlife, nor does the theist option necessarily mean that one believes in an afterlife. this poll is in regard to one specific aspect of belief... the belief (or lack thereof) in a (or many) god(s).

now, for the purposes of the poll, here are definitions.

theist = belief in any god or gods. i don't care if it's yahweh, allah, zeus, brahmin, whatever. it doesn't even have to be a specific god... you can have your own personal god.

agnostic = you either don't know whether there is a (or many) god(s), perhaps you think it's not possible to know, perhaps you simply don't care and don't know.

atheist = you don't think that there is a (or many) god(s).

note that neither the atheist or agnostic options rule out belief in an afterlife, nor does the theist option necessarily mean that one believes in an afterlife. this poll is in regard to one specific aspect of belief... the belief (or lack thereof) in a (or many) god(s).

Er... none of the above?

There's almost always half a dozen of these exact same threads floating around, and they almost always lead to baiting and flaming. What's the point, really?

Er... none of the above?
how are you none of the above?

there's believe, don't know (which indludes don't care) and disbelieve.

unless you're an animist or believe that there's a great spirit which encompasses all...? in which case, i'd say theist... as there's the belief in something greater.

There's almost always half a dozen of these exact same threads floating around, and they almost always lead to baiting and flaming. What's the point, really?
i'm not trying to bait anyone or anything.

and i don't see how this would descend into flames, it's a simple survey.

Surely the rejection of a god and a living soul means there can not be an afterlife as an atheist?

Oh I'm an atheist, but I look forward to converting to some religion as I get old and my impending death makes me fear for what may happen to me.

how are you none of the above?

there's believe, don't know (which indludes don't care) and disbelieve.

unless you're an animist or believe that there's a great spirit which encompasses all...? in which case, i'd say theist... as there's the belief in something greater.

Getting closer, I'll choose theist. (Unaffiliated Mysticism for me - the tapestry really is wonderful.)

Surely the rejection of a god and a living soul means there can not be an afterlife as an atheist?
you can be a buddhist and be an atheist and there's still an afterlife...

you can be a buddhist and be an atheist and there's still an afterlife...

Buddhists aren't atheists.

I am a "weak" atheist. I don't say the existance of certain definitions of god or gods is impossible, I just don't beleive any exist due to lack of evidence.

I would say theist. Because I AM God! Mwuahahahaa!

Alright, fine. What category would 'I don't care whether there's a God or not' go into?

Buddhists aren't atheists.
some are.

I would say theist. Because I AM God! Mwuahahahaa!

Alright, fine. What category would 'I don't care whether there's a God or not' go into?
agnostic

Nova I still say we initalise the Newer Testament movement. To help save more people from Hell!

I am theologically neutral as well, so I guess I fall into the agnostic category. I do not know if there is a supreme being or not, but I do not deny the possibility of one existing, or not existing.

some are.

What is enlightenment? The core of Buddhism relies on a greater consciousness, does it not?

I really fit into both agnostic/soft atheist but I chose agnostic cause it seems to fit just a bit better

Buddhists aren't atheists.
buddhists can have any stance on the existence of a deity. from polytheistic to atheistic and anywhere in between.

What is enlightenment? The core of Buddhism relies on a greater consciousness, does it not?
enlightenment relies more on yourself finding your way to nirvana. no deity is necessary or included in the package. it's just a state of bliss... in a way... it depends on the buddhist tradition too... there's some variety there.

Nova I still say we initalise the Newer Testament movement. To help save more people from Hell!

Hell... how much worse can things get than where we are now?!!

Better to be on the safe side - endorse every religious faith. (Works for me. ;) .)

What is enlightenment? The core of Buddhism relies on a greater consciousness, does it not?
I'm no buddhist, but I've read that some types of buddhism don't involve the existance of a god. Not a sentient force.

I really fit into both agnostic/soft atheist but I chose agnostic cause it seems to fit just a bit better

In my opinion, there is no such thing as a 'soft' atheist. They steadfastly deny the existance of 'God'.

In my opinion, there is no such thing as a 'soft' atheist. They steadfastly deny the existance of 'God'.
an atheist can also be defined as one who does not believe in a god.

if you're agnostic, you don't believe in a god (you just don't believe there isn't one)

thus agnostics are sometimes called soft atheists.

I always used to consider myself an atheist who didn't care, but in the last year or so, I genuinely thought about religion for the first time in my life, and decided that it's impossible to know whether god or gods exist or not. Therefore, I'm an agnostic, but one who doesn't really care at all.

What is enlightenment?

Ask Immanuel Kant. He wrote a paper with that exact title in 1784.

I'm no buddhist, but I've read that some types of buddhism don't involve the existance of a god. Not a sentient force.

Buddhism falls into 2 main categories, Mahayana and Theravada. Mahayana Buddhists believe that Buddha is himself a deity, whereas Theravada Buddhists do not believe this.

In my opinion, there is no such thing as a 'soft' atheist. They steadfastly deny the existance of 'God'.
Strong atheist says there can be no such thing as god. It's impossible.
weak (soft) atheist says It's not impossible, but without evidence I'll assume it's bull.

Kind of like whether or not Neanderthal man bred with Cro Magnon. Some people beleive it happened. Many beleive it's possible, of those most beleive it didn't happen because there's no evidence.

I'm no buddhist, but I've read that some types of buddhism don't involve the existance of a god. Not a sentient force.
Cha'an or Zen Buddhists do not believe in a god or gods either. They believe in the attainment of a higher state of being through the process of loss of ego (enlightenment)

enlightenment relies more on yourself finding your way to nirvana. no deity is necessary or included in the package. it's just a state of bliss... in a way... it depends on the buddhist tradition too... there's some variety there.

I agree about the variety. I'm glad you mentioned nirvana, because it implies the cycle of reincarnation - which involves 'God', absolutely. To transcend the cycle, one joines the ultimate being. It's very similar to Christianity in that sense.

I'm Prebyterian (PCA) Calvinist. I believe that God exists, and I believe in predestination, as it is taught through out the entire bible. I believe that as humans we are fallen, and have but one redeeming quality: we were made in God's image. We are prone to sinning and have a strong dislike for God, and are incapable of choosing him, hence why he chooses the "elect" as taught in the bible. (for those wishing to debate me on this check Romans Chapter 9 verses 10-33 or Ephesians Chapter 1 verses 1-14)

Agnostic for me. I don't think I see it as "impossible to know either", I rather see it as "harmful to be certain of either". To remain open to new information and changes in opinion is vital.

Cha'an or Zen Buddhists do not believe in a god or gods either. They believe in the attainment of a higher state of being through the process of loss of ego (enlightenment)

Zen Buddhism belongs to a different line of thinking altogether. They're not 'atheists' though.

I'm Prebyterian (PCA) Calvinist. I believe that God exists, and I believe in predestination, as it is taught through out the entire bible. I believe that as humans we are fallen, and have but one redeeming quality: we were made in God's image. We are prone to sinning and have a strong dislike for God, and are incapable of choosing him, hence why he chooses the "elect" as taught in the bible. (for those wishing to debate me on this check Romans Chapter 9 verses 10-33 or Ephesians Chapter 1 verses 1-14)
One question … if we were made in his image (assuming going beyond a physical thing) then why all the massive flaws we seem to possess? Does that reflect the flaws the god him/herself has?

I agree about the variety. I'm glad you mentioned nirvana, because it implies the cycle of reincarnation - which involves 'God', absolutely. To transcend the cycle, one joines the ultimate being. It's very similar to Christianity in that sense.
reincarnation does not necessarily involve a god...

and if anything, to transcend the cycle of death and rebirth involves the realisation of the lack of self and the loss of attachments to the self and material posessions... i'm terrible at explaining and i'm no expert myself... but buddhism does not necessarily involve a god and in every version of buddhism that i've heard there is a goal of getting off the wheel of rebirth if only for several lifetimes...

I always used to consider myself an atheist who didn't care, but in the last year or so, I genuinely thought about religion for the first time in my life, and decided that it's impossible to know whether god or gods exist or not. Therefore, I'm an agnostic, but one who doesn't really care at all.



Ask Immanuel Kant. He wrote a paper with that exact title in 1784.

:p That was a rhetorical question.

Zen Buddhism belongs to a different line of thinking altogether. They're not 'atheists' though.
Different to what? :confused:

reincarnation does not necessarily involve a god...

and if anything, to transcend the cycle of death and rebirth involves the realisation of the lack of self and the loss of attachments to the self and material posessions... i'm terrible at explaining and i'm no expert myself... but buddhism does not necessarily involve a god and in every version of buddhism that i've heard there is a goal of getting off the wheel of rebirth if only for several lifetimes...

*sighs* Okay, what happens when one gets off the wheel? 'God' doesn't have to fit the western sense strictly.

Different to what? :confused:

Different to Buddhism (Mahayana and Theravada) which is on the eastern line of thinking. Zen buddhism is central, like hinduism and bahai.

Right, that's my 2... 5... 50... well, yeah. Good night all.

I choose B, agnostic.

*sighs* Okay, what happens when one gets off the wheel? 'God' doesn't have to fit the western sense strictly.
when you get off the wheel, you float around in bliss.

no god involved.

see, the thing is that the completely neutral stance of buddhism at its core on the subject is rooted in the fact that the buddha never mentioned a damn thing about a god, ever. never said one existed, never said one didn't. i'm sure that if a deity was necessary for reincarnation or nirvana, then he would have mentioned that. however, he said nothing...

I'm Prebyterian (PCA) Calvinist. I believe that God exists, and I believe in predestination, as it is taught through out the entire bible. I believe that as humans we are fallen, and have but one redeeming quality: we were made in God's image. We are prone to sinning and have a strong dislike for God, and are incapable of choosing him, hence why he chooses the "elect" as taught in the bible. (for those wishing to debate me on this check Romans Chapter 9 verses 10-33 or Ephesians Chapter 1 verses 1-14)

So what if i am not one of the elect? is there any point in me trying to be good? no, therefore i can rampage and pillage as much as i like because my future is already determined. And if i am one of the elect im getting into heaven no matter what because it is in my nature to do things in such a way that will ensure this.

John Calvin's theory, in my opinion, is fatally flawed as a real world solution, it presents an image of God as authoritarian and fickle and removes the idea of salvation. Also the bible itself contradicts the theory:

Romans 1:16 - For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

I'm Prebyterian (PCA) Calvinist. I believe that God exists, and I believe in predestination, as it is taught through out the entire bible. I believe that as humans we are fallen, and have but one redeeming quality: we were made in God's image. We are prone to sinning and have a strong dislike for God, and are incapable of choosing him, hence why he chooses the "elect" as taught in the bible. (for those wishing to debate me on this check Romans Chapter 9 verses 10-33 or Ephesians Chapter 1 verses 1-14)
so you believe that god has created billions of people who have zero chance of getting into heaven. so he creates people who are doomed to eternal torment from the beginning of time?

and you find this god worthy of worship WHY? is the assumption that YOU are going to be one of the elect enough to get you on his team?

interesting belief.

so you believe that god has created billions of people who have zero chance of getting into heaven. so he creates people who are doomed to eternal torment from the beginning of time?

and you find this god worthy of worship WHY? is the assumption that YOU are going to be one of the elect enough to get you on his team?

interesting belief.
Well most christian religions beleive this. God knows everything, including what will occur in the future, right. He knows which of his beloved creations are hellbound. Yet he doesn't take the humane step of preventing their birth in the first place.

Well most christian religions beleive this. God knows everything, including what will occur in the future, right. He knows which of his beloved creations are hellbound. Yet he doesn't take the humane step of preventing their birth in the first place.

In most cases, it wouldn't just be humane for them, it would be humane for everyone else as well.

In most cases, it wouldn't just be humane for them, it would be humane for everyone else as well.
God works in mysterious ways. Who are you to question his judgement? He only gave you reason and logic to tempt you into sin.

The closest approximation to my understanding of (read "belief in") deity is pantheistic, that is, an immanent deity: "is an inner Presence and Power that permeates, saturates, or infuses the universe and everything in it (including the world and humanity, nature and human nature) from within".

(http://www.religioustolerance.org/tran_imm.htm)

God works in mysterious ways. Who are you to question his judgement? He only gave you reason and logic to tempt you into sin.

Does mysterious = sick and twisted. Or is it the Christian's way of saying: "He screws us over the whole time!!!! But it's okay...because he 'works in mysterious ways'". Some sick twisted man who rapes young girls then kills them, taking pictures of their dead bodies, then posts them on forums around the internet's mind might "work in mysterious ways" but hell - i'm not even sure that's worse than killing 150, 000 people in one tsunami. Thats not so great to me!

Sure, say it's a test of faith, and I like that argument: it's the most convincing. But then why does he "TEST THE FAITH" of those who have never even experienced christianity. Hell I bet there are some tribes out there who still don't know what Christianity is and doesn't know what America is. Do they 'deserve' to be part of this "TEST" that God plays: to me, there is no way to justify these 'mysterious ways' as a good reason as to why sometimes "Life's a b****", especially for people who don't even know of "God's existence".

Well most christian religions beleive this. God knows everything, including what will occur in the future, right. He knows which of his beloved creations are hellbound. Yet he doesn't take the humane step of preventing their birth in the first place.
no i think this is different
most christians believe that the individual has free will and will accept god or not. that god has known my choice from the beginning of time is different from me being predestined to go to hell because he has ELECTED some few people to get in and im not one of them.

no i think this is different
most christians believe that the individual has free will and will accept god or not. that god has known my choice from the beginning of time is different from me being predestined to go to hell because he has ELECTED some few people to get in and im not one of them.
I'm not arguing that you don't have free will. You agreed that god knew your choice from the beginning of time. If he knew you would choose hell, why would he let you be born? Once again, it's not our place to know god's will. Reason and logic are only tools to tempt us. God works in mysterious ways.

Different to Buddhism (Mahayana and Theravada) which is on the eastern line of thinking. Zen buddhism is central, like hinduism and bahai.
Zen is the Japanese version of Cha'an which as you say is a different stream. However it is still a stream of Buddhism.

Zen is the Japanese version of Cha'an which as you say is a different stream. However it is still a stream of Buddhism.

Agreed, I'm just saying it's very different. Fundamentally.

when you get off the wheel, you float around in bliss.

no god involved.

see, the thing is that the completely neutral stance of buddhism at its core on the subject is rooted in the fact that the buddha never mentioned a damn thing about a god, ever. never said one existed, never said one didn't. i'm sure that if a deity was necessary for reincarnation or nirvana, then he would have mentioned that. however, he said nothing...

Okay, I'll have to compromise and say that nirvana is a way of finding 'God' in the same way that Christians do when they die. Ultimately, it's all the same thing. All major religions are. I'll also correst a few of my errors - it was very late: :headbang: Buddhism is on the central line, Zen buddhism is on the eastern (not the other way around) and Bahai is on the western line, so that was altogether wrong. :rolleyes:

I'm not arguing that you don't have free will. You agreed that god knew your choice from the beginning of time. If he knew you would choose hell, why would he let you be born? Once again, it's not our place to know god's will. Reason and logic are only tools to tempt us. God works in mysterious ways.
because if god doesnt let me be born then i cant choose the path of damnation and we're all invovled in some kind of paradox?

if we have free will, then we all have an equal chance to get into heaven. sort of. some people are born in non christian areas and have no chance to hear the true word of god (some denomination believe there is an out for these people) some are taught a version of christianity so twisted that no rational person could accept it. but, in theory, we all have the chance to be saved and its OUR choice to be saved or not.

if god ELECTS a few people to save, then i may well be doomed to hell no matter what i do. sorta like a woman's chance of getting into harvard in 1900.

so it seems that god has a thing for free will. he is fine with damning people to eternal torment if they make the wrong choices in life. that he has always known that i will choose the wrong path doesnt mean i didnt choose it. if he skipped the living part then its the same as making people who dont have free will, he just ends up with a bunch of people in heaven who have never really been tested.

I'm somewhere between agnostic and Dieist (belief in God, but that he doesn't intervene in this world anymore)

I am a theist, but I am also a dualist.

I'm an agnostic

I clicked the wrong option.
Oops.
I'm agnostic.

Okay, what should I do? I'm firmly convinced that there is neither an all-powerful benevolent force (cf. 'God', Yahweh, Allah etc.) nor an all-powerful malevolent one (cf. 'Devil', Lucifer Morningstar, Shaitan etc.). Instead, I believe that there are many minor powers looking over the universe. These powers could be compared with angels and demons, but they are not Deities. Should I go for Theist (even though I don't think there are any gods) or agnostic (even though I'm dead certain there's something more out there).

I'm an atheist. I believe it's just us & our imaginations.

Okay, what should I do? I'm firmly convinced that there is neither an all-powerful benevolent force (cf. 'God', Yahweh, Allah etc.) nor an all-powerful malevolent one (cf. 'Devil', Lucifer Morningstar, Shaitan etc.). Instead, I believe that there are many minor powers looking over the universe. These powers could be compared with angels and demons, but they are not Deities. Should I go for Theist (even though I don't think there are any gods) or agnostic (even though I'm dead certain there's something more out there).

I'd say theist, but that's just me.

Agreed, I'm just saying it's very different. Fundamentally.
In what way would you say it is fundamentally different out of interest? I am not trying to argue it, I am interested :)

In what way would you say it is fundamentally different out of interest? I am not trying to argue it, I am interested :)

Fair enough. :) Unfortunately, I have to admit my ignorance. I lack the knowledge to say sufficiently. I can only say that Zen is eastern line of thinking (more like Taoism) and Buddhism is central line (more direct offshoot of Hinduism.)

God works in mysterious ways. Who are you to question his judgement? He only gave you reason and logic to tempt you into sin.
If the info you give is correct then God works in idiot ways. Who am I to question his judgement? I am me, and that is enough. I'll question anyones judgement, especially if they're as big a screw-up as he seems to be. :gundge:

Yes, Drunk commies, I know your not the apologist who originally gave the description. My regrets if I gave that impression,

So far, the poll seems to show we're pretty well balanced in terms of religious stances on this forum.

Fair enough. :) Unfortunately, I have to admit my ignorance. I lack the knowledge to say sufficiently. I can only say that Zen is eastern line of thinking (more like Taoism) and Buddhism is central line (more direct offshoot of Hinduism.)
Ah I see. In that case I would answer that Taoism evolved from traditional religions as a direct response to Buddhism reaching and spreading in China. Zen or Cha'an is very much part of mainstream Buddhism and came about after the Buddhism in China was reformed to conform more with the original scriptures. It uses the same scriptures and teachings as Indian forms of Buddhism and conforms to the majority of the same beliefs. The main difference being a lack of reincarnation. Taoism is interesting as it contains much that is borrowed form Buddhism applied over an originally shamanistic world view so it draws from two sources.

Ah I see. In that case I would answer that Taoism evolved from traditional religions as a direct response to Buddhism reaching and spreading in China. Zen or Cha'an is very much part of mainstream Buddhism and came about after the Buddhism in China was reformed to conform more with the original scriptures. It uses the same scriptures and teachings as Indian forms of Buddhism and conforms to the majority of the same beliefs. The main difference being a lack of reincarnation. Taoism is interesting as it contains much that is borrowed form Buddhism applied over an originally shamanistic world view so it draws from two sources.

Well, if you know, I can't disagree. What are the main differences between Cha'an and mainsteam Buddhism?

Well, if you know, I can't disagree. What are the main differences between Cha'an and mainsteam Buddhism?
Mainly the reincarnation aspect. As it spread Buddhism absorbed ideas from local customs and dropped things that were alien in order to make sense to its audience. So for example Tibetan Buddhism includes all sorts of spirits and demons that other Buddhists find quite strange and even worrying. In Chinese and Japanese Buddhism reincarnation is not really a factor as there was no culture of believing in it. Cha'an/Zen is also more austere in its practice and much more internal. Silent meditation rather than using mantras is much more common. However the ultimate aim is the same and the teachings are mostly the same. It is a question of emphasis and method rather than belief that is different. Rather like say the Orthodox and Catholic churches - same book, same idea, diverging method.

Mainly the reincarnation aspect. As it spread Buddhism absorbed ideas from local customs and dropped things that were alien in order to make sense to its audience. So for example Tibetan Buddhism includes all sorts of spirits and demons that other Buddhists find quite strange and even worrying. In Chinese and Japanese Buddhism reincarnation is not really a factor as there was no culture of believing in it. Cha'an/Zen is also more austere in its practice and much more internal. Silent meditation rather than using mantras is much more common. However the ultimate aim is the same and the teachings are mostly the same. It is a question of emphasis and method rather than belief that is different. Rather like say the Orthodox and Catholic churches - same book, same idea, diverging method.

And yet, so much blood split over interpretation. :( Okay, so would you consider it possible to equate the God of the three faiths with nirvana?

And yet, so much blood split over interpretation. :( Okay, so would you consider it possible to equate the God of the three faiths with nirvana?
I know. You think people would read their religious books more closely wouldn't you. They all tend to have something to say about not shedding blood.

Personally I think not since in Buddhism the intent is not to get closer to an all powerful deity but to become enlightened in emulation of a great man. It seems to me that Buddhism isn't really a religion in the usual sense of the word, although it does have many similar aspects. It is also something more than simply a philosophy or way of life.

I know. You think people would read their religious books more closely wouldn't you. They all tend to have something to say about not shedding blood.

Personally I think not since in Buddhism the intent is not to get closer to an all powerful deity but to become enlightened in emulation of a great man. It seems to me that Buddhism isn't really a religion in the usual sense of the word, although it does have many similar aspects. It is also something more than simply a philosophy or way of life.

I agree, it is more. C'mon, this is cental to my argument! :) My definitions of 'God' are very loose, I know, but I still feel, ultimately, that all religions aim for the same thing. Just different perspectives. Or am I mistaken?

Buddhism internalizes deity; other religions externalize it. The purpose of deity is a recognition of something transcendent of man. The external deity transcends man in a "unknown, unknowable" way. The Buddhist transcends self.

Does that make sense?

I don't know how I would be classified, I beleived the deities that humankind chooses to bow down to and worship exist and are very real...but they are all in your head.

I agree, it is more. C'mon, this is cental to my argument! :) My definitions of 'God' are very loose, I know, but I still feel, ultimately, that all religions aim for the same thing. Just different perspectives. Or am I mistaken?
If you were to argue that all religions share the aim of making us better than we are then I think yes. But any more complicated than that and I am not sure if it would hold up...

I don't know how I would be classified, I beleived the deities that humankind chooses to bow down to and worship exist and are very real...but they are all in your head.

Theist, in my opinion.

If you were to argue that all religions share the aim of making us better than we are then I think yes. But any more complicated than that and I am not sure if it would hold up...

Yeah, more D&M. I have it on good authority though. ;)

Theist, in my opinion.
And that would be...all in your head.

And that would be...all in your head.

Naturally, I offer an opinion - take it or leave it. :) You accept the existance of God, and proved it without doubt. This understanding is commendable. If you do not yourself believe, I would still say theist.

I don't know how I would be classified, I beleived the deities that humankind chooses to bow down to and worship exist and are very real...but they are all in your head.
I believe that, also, though I label them symbols abstracted onto the real world.

because if god doesnt let me be born then i cant choose the path of damnation and we're all invovled in some kind of paradox?

if we have free will, then we all have an equal chance to get into heaven. sort of. some people are born in non christian areas and have no chance to hear the true word of god (some denomination believe there is an out for these people) some are taught a version of christianity so twisted that no rational person could accept it. but, in theory, we all have the chance to be saved and its OUR choice to be saved or not.

if god ELECTS a few people to save, then i may well be doomed to hell no matter what i do. sorta like a woman's chance of getting into harvard in 1900.

so it seems that god has a thing for free will. he is fine with damning people to eternal torment if they make the wrong choices in life. that he has always known that i will choose the wrong path doesnt mean i didnt choose it. if he skipped the living part then its the same as making people who dont have free will, he just ends up with a bunch of people in heaven who have never really been tested.
If you're not born free will is moot. No paradox. Only those who exist have free will.

I'm pretty friggin' confident that if there is a higher being of some sort, it really is a higher being. This is to say, he, she, or it is not going to be wrapped up in the sort of petty quibbling that is the bread and butter of the major world religions. If god gives a rat's ass about whether I eat meat on Fridays or cover my head or make womenfolk walk three steps behind me, it's a pretty petty sort of divinity, sort of like a vindictive Santa Claus with an arbitrary sense of naughty and nice.

Pascal's safe bet can take a flying leap. I refuse to believe that a power capable of creating a universe so massive and complicated is also capable of saying "you will only be saved if you believe this ridiculous mythology about my virgin-born son and accept him as your personal savior, otherwise, outer dark and hellfire await. Better pack your sunscreen."