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?

Patrick H

Chapter 9, The Bible Myth or History?
Christianity is not primarily about how to treat others but about believing what God has said be it on history or whatever. There is more history and doctrine in the religion than moral rules. Just as it would be a sin to misrepresent what a historian says so it is a sin to reject history that is given to you by God.   The focus in Christianity is "factual" claims not morality.


Handbook of Christian Apologetics Says
We should see that scripture is a reliable source of history and it reports that Christ claimed to be divine and then you can argue that his claims were true
The best scholars hold that scripture is not historically or scientifically reliable. Its such a controversial issue that even if scripture were historically verifiable the fact that most scholars who know better than the handbook writers deny it shows that it would take years of work for each individual to think and check it out for himself. Thatís all you can do to obey the rule of God that you listen to God not men but only you can make sure it is not men you are listening to. If the Bible were really written by God he would be able to stop the influence of the critics from attaining the prestige and unanimity they have brought to scepticism towards the Bible.
The Bible books of Jonah and perhaps Job as well as the Genesis story of Adam and Eve are not literally history
Reason Says
This is the new trick of the Church. When a Bible book like the ones they mention and Iíd add the books of Judith and Tobit to that, is proven to have errors in it, they say itís a religious novel. Absurd religious books were common in the ancient world, and they were meant seriously. Just because the Adam and Eve story is silly doesnít mean it was non-literal. The story and the books give no hint that they are non-literal or non-history.
We use language like the sun rises though we know it doesnít even today so we should not accuse the Bible of scientific error when it says the sun rises or when it speaks of the earth as if it is flat.
We only use the expression out of tradition. Long ago the expression was used out of scientific conviction! The world looked flat and they thought it was flat!  
The Bible meant it.