I'm away for a few hours, and look what happened ... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! The thing is that in religions, it usually DOES MATTER how come a person believes or doesn't believe. That's why I said that trying to make the issue of belief an objective cognitive matter is inadequate. For example, in Christianity, if a person says they believe in God because they don't want to go to hell, this is not enough; in fact, according to some Christians, it is precisely such belief in God that will land a person straight in hell. Of course it's "too active", and "non-acceptance" doesn't mend the problem either. Note that several stances might be at work here underneath, such as: "If a person has something, it is because they want to have it." "If a person doesn't have something, it is because they chose not to have it." "Whatever the state of affairs, it is a result of conscious, deliberate actions." These are sometimes adequate, but other times they are not. I'll put it this way: From a particular perspective, there are two externally observable results: accept and not accept. But there are six different intentions possible to lead to those results: The intention to accept leads to acceptance. The other six intentions lead to non-acceptance (or rejection, if you will). The crux is that religions and philosophies often refuse to accept the person's own account of what their intentions are, but instead some religions and philosophies impose on the person their own understanding of what intention lead to a particular result. So a religion might claim, "If you don't believe in God, this is because you are deliberately refusing to believe in God, despite the fact that you know the Truth". I gave up on trying to understand Vital's position.