Do we prevent somebody being hurt by superstition or faith by rejecting and challenging those things? 

Is it mistaken to support organised religion in membership or donations?

If people do good because they are human, not because God prompts them then is it right to risk giving God any credit when they alone own their good?

 


EVOLUTION IS CALLED AN IDEOLOGY BY DISCIPLES OF THE IDEOLOGY OF NON-EVOLUTION!

People are prone to thinking it is dangerous to make out we are just another animal and the coronavirus has as much right to take over the world as we have.  Evolution is the notion that there is no purpose and chance and time both led to us being here.  Evolution describes complexity not progress.  If we are going to destroy ourselves and the whole world we are not an evolution in the sense of progress.

Fundamentalist Christianity does not really care what damage if any belief in evolution does. What it really cares about is stopping people from seeing that its ridiculous Bible is full of lies.
 
The Bible says that the first man Adam was made from the dust. It is careful to say that animals were made from the dust separately.  This clearly denies that man came from animals. 

Genesis 2:7 says that God breathed into Adamís nostrils and Adam became a living person then. This cannot be used to prove the Bible teaches life begins at birth or the first breath for Adam is not a born being. The usual image is that he was built and was just a thing and object became alive when God breathed into him. [Against that it can be argued that the Bible says God is a potter making dead things and breathing life into them which could be saying that a baby is only a person when it is born. But that is best seen as poetry. It does not necessarily mean the author was really claiming we should see that an unborn baby is just a thing until it breathes.]

Evolution says there was no first man but loads of men who were evolved from ape like creatures.

Some try to find a place in Genesis for evolution for while the Bible supposedly says all things were made from nothing it does not say Adam was made from nothing.  It says God used dust and dirt to make him.  The rationalisers or excuse-makers say that Adam, the first man, was created indirectly. Yes indirectly from dust not apes.  They want to think that his ancestors were made from the dust and eventually through evolution they produced the first man! The simplest interpretation of the text is the right one. The man was directly made from dust according to Genesis.  And there was no sexual reproduction yet so where did the female ancestors come from?  To stress that there was no sexual activity yet the Bible says that God made Adam sleep and when he was asleep he took a rib from him and turned it into a woman Eve. This contradicts the evolutionary idea that men and women evolved together.

People forget that once you say there is a God then it follows that it may be chemicals etc that make you feel good but the purpose of the chemicals is to make you feel good.  It is the difference between the mechanical and the personal side.  So you think what you have is given to you and is about you. This is not science.
 
Theologians point to the absurdities and errors in the story of the creation of life in the Bible and argue then that the story was never meant to be taken literally! Of course it was! It was written in an age that had silly religious stories. To argue that a religious text proven to be false must be true but metaphorical is just more religious excuse making. It means that there is more belief in making excuses than in the text! If fundamentalists today can take the creation stories literally, how much more could the authors have done so all those centuries ago?
 
Theologians hide the discrepancy between their Bible and science by making out that the Bible is not a scientific textbook but a religious one. But just because the Bible never mentions experiments or never uses scientific terminology does not mean it cannot think of itself as science!
 
Some religious claim that God and evolution can fit for evolution might be the way God made us. Religious people like to lie that evolving means the same thing as improving. It does not. Let us pretend that it does. If we are evolving then we are better than the men and women that came before us. The men and women of the future will be better than us. The further back you go the less value the men and women have. This contradicts the view that God is a God of egalitarianism.
 
It is said that even if we are better, the people of the past were less evolved and so cannot be condemned for the hideous things they did. You cannot criticise your dog for not having evolved to talk to you. But evolving really means not that we will be better overall in the future but will be better in some ways. And some of these ways might have nothing to do with how we treat each other. We could become smarter but less compassionate.

The view endorsed by some that evolution is fine as long as you do not believe humans evolved is common in some religious circles. It suggests that the human creatures that evolved were not really humans. The Bible is clear that the first humans were created by a miracle. It says man was made from dust and there was no woman until later.  Many Muslims say the creation of man was miraculous but how can they when their religion is not about miracles? Muhammad did no miracles nor did he want to or say they were important.  Anyway it sounds evil to imply that human beings may not be human if they evolved.  It is a form of racist bigotry.
 
Evolution leaves no room for God. A God who hides his presence by making evolution look like a purposeless force is a God who is not there at all!
 
Evolution is incompatible with the Bible and the concept of God has no relevance to it.
 
Evolution describes the trial and error through natural selection that helped create the complicated forms of life we see today. The bottom line is that evolution says that nothing intended for us to be so well developed but it still happened. Bringing God into it by saying that he guides the process is a denial of evolution. Something that looks like evolution is not evolution. Christian evolutionists are at heart anti-science and lying that they are pro-science.