Whether or not he was the first, Nietzsche, the son of an evangelical Lutheran minister is famous for saying, "God is dead!"

Well and good, say I. It is about time. Like the gods on Mount Olympus 'He' deserved to die. More accurately: the gods on Olympus never existed in the first place. They were figments in the imagination of those who wanted and chose to believe in them. In my opinion, the same is true for 'God'--a personal and super being, a loving heavenly father, separate and apart from creation and us creatures.

GØD, on the other hand, is a real as creation, nature and life itself. To me, creation, nature and life are self-evident concepts. So is GØD. God is dead; long live GØD.
When, in his book, The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins talks about the possibility for atheists to be "happy, balanced, moral and intellectually fulfilled" he is talking about his relationship with GØD. He describes this as, "the first of his consciousness-raising messages". Has he never read John 20, 17-24, where Jesus goes on and on describing how he, and we with him, are one in GØD.

Yes, I know that the English Bible translation of Jesus' Aramaic word for, 'Eloha', is 'God'. But since, over the years, we have ruined that word 'God', by the way we have used it so anthropomorphically--that is, we have made God in our own image--it is about time we retired it from common usage.

Retiring old and worn-out words and even expressions is not an uncommon practice in our dynamic English language language. For example, when was the last time you smote a fly, let alone a person; or said to someone "Pray thee, tell me..." Sure some still "enjoy" the language of Shakespeare. But unless we use notes, how many of us really understand all of his great plays? We not only retire old words, we create new ones, almost every day.

Do I need to say much more about this to make my point? If so I will do so as I think more about it. Maybe those of you who like words--I know you like word games--can add an example of two.

Meanwhile, I will work on making the concept of GØD--the one which suits me--as clear as I possibly can. All I will say for now is this: I am not at all comfortable with the two mutually exclusive absolutes before us:

1. The first is dogmatic theism--the strong belief that there is one true God of all the major religions; that he is a personal being who hears and answers all our prayers and has a plan for each and every human being, including unbelievers.

2. The second is dogmatic atheism--the belief that it is morally worn to believe in any kind of god-concept; that the believe in God, in any form, is a harmful delusion.

Pray thee, tell me, do you also write articles in a small paper near San Luis Obispo California? Yes, I see the Ontario, but your writing style reminds me of someone.

I don't think it's morally wrong to have a false belief. It's just something to overcome on the path of self improvement.

Who could choose to believe the sun moves across the sky when he knows what Copernicus knew? Apparently there are some Creationists who haven't gotten the word. What else could explain their refusal to upgrade their knowledge?

Perhaps holding on to the old ways out of fear of the new is a symptom of weakness more than immorality.

What is his/her writing style--and content? I would be interested in taking a look at it.