I have some questions for the religious evangelists

I have some questions for the religious evangelists. If you are willing to politely state your view, please leave comment as answer to my questions.

I check out wikipedia and found that about 28% people believe in Christianity and 22% in Islam.

As a religious evanglelist, you, I suppose, will argue for your faith. So my first question is why you are convinced that 3 quarters of the people in the world is wrong and you are right that your god is the true god?

A follow up question is for the Christian and Islam evangelists. Why the god of the other faith (e.g. if you are Christian, the other god is that from Islam) is NOT the true god?

Finally, please convince me that I should believe in your god. If you are attempting this part, bear in mind that I hate tactics like sending me to hell in the after life stuff. I won't buy. Tell me good things. For example, any good deed that normal people without religion will never do, i.e. good deeds that only religious people will do. Hint: you will need quite a lot good deed facts to counter-balance the bad thing religions have done to human civilization and human moral advancement. Mother Teresa of Calcutta is NOT a sufficient example as what she has done, while great and good in nature, can also be done by any good people without regilious belief. In fact, she later expressed grave doubts about God's existence and pain over her lack of faith. See this extract

Where is my faith? Even deep down … there is nothing but emptiness and darkness … If there be God—please forgive me. When I try to raise my thoughts to Heaven, there is such convicting emptiness that those very thoughts return like sharp knives and hurt my very soul … How painful is this unknown pain—I have no Faith. Repulsed, empty, no faith, no love, no zeal, … What do I labor for? If there be no God, there can be no soul. If there be no soul then, Jesus, You also are not true.

Spiritual dimensions of informal learning

via Big Dog,Little Dog

I found the title very strange, uneasy in fact.

To make sure I understand the meaning of "spiritual", I googled:

Definitions of spiritual on the Web:

* religious: concerned with sacred matters or religion or the church; "religious texts"; "a member of a religious order"; "lords temporal and spiritual"; "spiritual leaders"; "spiritual songs"
* concerned with or affecting the spirit or soul; "a spiritual approach to life"; "spiritual fulfillment"; "spiritual values"; "unearthly love"
* lacking material body or form or substance; "spiritual beings"; "the vital transcendental soul belonging to the spiritual realm"-Lewis Mumford
* a kind of religious song originated by Blacks in the southern United States
* apparitional: resembling or characteristic of a phantom; "a ghostly face at the window"; "a phantasmal presence in the room"; "spectral emanations"; "spiritual tappings at a seance"
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Without seeing the original paper (a link was provided, but that gets to nowhere), I reread the post again.

Please someone enlighten me. I just cannot see the connection between "spiritual" and "informal learning".

The main argument of the author is that informal learning can foster a (a) strong sense of self, (b) concern and outreach to others, and (c) continuous construction of meaning and knowledge.

"can foster"??? How? Why?

It was like attending a church service sometime ago when I was in Hongkong with my little sister (she is no longer little, she is the youngest thro'). I found the priest inter-posing some of his life experience with some text from the Bible. I just cannot see the connection. His life experience in no way support the truth (or lack of) in the reference Biblical text. The Biblical text support (or lack of) his life experience too.

Disclaimer: My primary school is a Christian school, my secondary a Catholic and I have taught in a Buddhist school for over 15 years.