Why Would They Call Evolution A "Religion"?

It always puzzles me when the creationists think they are criticising evolution by calling it a "religion". Because, Surely, If being a "religion" makes evolution, According to their argument, Unsupported, facile, Not grounded in reality and false, it must be a bigger criticism of their own belief, A belief which actually is a "religion".

I mean, An evolutionist would never try to criticise creation by saying "well, creation is just another science based on factual evidence, Supported by practically every scientific discovery, rational and logical".

See, What they are trying to do with this type of approach is instead of defending their own position, They try to make ours seem as untenable as theirs. When in reality all they are doing is proving that even they think "religions" are inherently wrong, unsupported by evidence and, well, made up bullshit.

Make sure you pull them up on this next time they try it.

What Happens When Christians Are Honest

This is a brilliant example of what happens when christians honestly answer questions put to them. granted the caller answered honestly because he lacked the intellect to understand what an honest answer would do to his argument, But none the less, He answered honestly and dismantled his own case for the existence of god all by himself.

Is It Possible To Argue For The Existence Of God Without Using Logical Fallacies?

In my countless attempts at trying to have reasonable conversations with the religious it has become apparent that every line of argument they take essentially boils down to a logical fallacy. A mode of reasoning that is entirely flawed.

It has drawn me to the conclusion that no argument for the existence of god can ever be logically sound, And as such any argument for the existence of god can be dismissed.

The most popular fallacy used is the argument from ignorance. The theist will assume that your inability to answer a question they pose or give an explanation of something is in fact evidence for their explanation. They will ask how the big bang came about, As if our current lack of an explanation gives credibility to their "magic man done it" theory. This is some times referred to as the "god of gaps". They wait for a gap and shove their god in to fill it.

The second most popular fallacy is the argument from design. The theist assumes that because the laws of physics appear to be fine tuned that they must have been fine tuned, And because no explanation can be given as to how this may occur naturally they invoke the god of gaps and say "magic man done it".

The third most popular has got to be their good old straw man argument where the theist will say "Scientists believe we evolved from rocks.. So how long does it take a rock to evolve in to a cat?". They completely misrepresent the claim made by science and turn it in to something they feel equipped to counter and ask you a question based on their misrepresentation.

Last but not least, A fallacy that all religious people are guilty of, And a fallacy which name escapes me at the moment, Is when a conclusion is reached and then evidence is gathered to support that conclusion. The theist will already be of the opinion that a god exists and after the conclusion is reached they go off looking for evidence to support than conclusion. They have the scientific process back to front.

So are there any arguments for the existence of god that are at least logically sound? are there any arguments that can't be dismissed straight away as being abominations in logic?

Science Vs Faith FlowChart

Why An Intervening God And Free Will Can't Coexist

1. God answers prayers
2. God granted us free will

The above two statements would be called true by any self respecting christian.

But if they were to stop and think for a second (i know it's hard) instead of spewing forth parroted rhetoric they would soon see that both of these statements can't possibly be true at the same time.

How can we possibly have "free will" if we live in a world where god intervenes?

I will give you a situation that demonstrates what i mean;
Let's say a christian is walking home from a prayer meeting one night and he is approached by a man with a gun who demands that the christian hand over his wallet. Being a christian and unable to sort his own problems out the christian immediately starts praying to god asking for his intervention in the situation, By which point the robber has had enough of asking politely and decides to shoot the christian in the face and take the wallet.

Even though the robber points the gun directly at the chistians face and pulls the trigger the bullet misses and embeds it's self in a lamp post 90 degrees from the gun. The christian concludes that god must have answered his prayer.

Ok, let's assume (for the sake of argument) that god did in fact intervene and prevent the bullet plowing through the christians skull. Wouldn't that have infringed on the free will of the robber? The robbers will was to shoot the christian in the face, but god stepped in and prevented the robbers will being done.

It's impossible for free will and celestial intervention to coexist.

If christians are going to use "free will" as a reason why god does nothing about starving children, Aids, Child rape, Genocide and murder they can't then defend gods willingness to infringe on "free will" in cases where it suites them (ie where christian prayer takes president over free will).

Either god answers prayers, or we have free will. The laws of logic state both can't be true.