I never asked for “help” (in the conventional use of the word, as if to say I’m lost or in pain). I’m only puzzled (when I’m not amused) by the religious nonsense that believers believe in.

1. If something is understood to be true — water and oil don’t mix; certain plants undergo photosynthesis, Paul McCartney was once a member of The Beatles — then that something is a bit of knowledge that someone has about a person or the world. To speak of faith is to speak of something that one believes in where knowledge is lacking. Think it through: If you had knowledge about something, you wouldn’t have faith about that something!
2. Nobody knows what caused the Big Bang. A lack of knowledge about the Big Bang’s cause does not give you or anyone else intellectual license to say “God did it.” That’s what you theists do all the time: There’s a mystery; we don’t understand that mystery (yet); therefore, God did it. It’s a dumb way of thinking, and theists make this type of error all the time. Long, long ago, it was thought that a “demon” caused someone to convulse on the ground and froth at the mouth. Now we know better: Epilepsy is the culprit of this kind of physiological disturbance. So stop saying “God did it” as a response to what caused the Big Bang (or anything else that humans currently don’t understand). To do so is to fall into the same intellectual trap as believing that a person who is convulsing is under the sway of a “demon.”
3. What’s the evidence that fairies exist? Once again, the burden is never on the person who says, for example, “I don’t believe in fairies” because expressing a disbelief in something isn’t a claim. By contrast, saying that fairies do exist puts the onus on the person making that claim. If you, Drew, said, “I don’t believe in Sasquatch” there’s nothing more you need to do or say to support that statement. You’re simply saying that you don’t believe in the existence of Sasquatch. Ditto for me when it comes to gods, angels, fairies, leprechauns, souls, heaven, and hell.
4. “But God claims he is uncreated.” Sounds to me like you’re referring to The Bible again. Turning to That Book to say that God or Jesus or whatever is this, that, or the other thing is to engage in circular thinking. Hey, did you know that the characters in The Lord of the Rings assert things about themselves? Gee, I guess it must be true! After all, The Lord of the Rings (the book) says that’s it’s true, right?
5. It’s a fact that morality is an emergent property of evolution because rudimentary forms of morality can be seen in other animals (yes: “other” because humans are animals, too). Caring for kin, sharing food, and altruistic behavior have been seen in many animals. The Moral Animal by Robert Wright is an excellent introduction on this subject. I also see that Patricia Churchland recently published a book on this theme: Conscience: The Origins of Moral Intuition. I haven’t read it yet.
6. The theory of evolution says nothing about “sin” because “sin” is a religious word and concept. The theory of evolution is concerned with explaining how life flourishes and propagates (not with how life emerged, by the way; that’s a different subject called abiogenesis). Any notion of “sin” has nothing to do with explaining how, for example, genes get into the next generation or how DNA is replicated, or… and all sorts of other things that have only to do with biology.
7. Finally, immoral behavior certainly exists in the world, but such immoral behavior is immoral behavior. It would be wrong to burgle your neighbor, but such behavior isn’t a “sin,” that is, in the religious sense of the word. I point out this distinction because “sin” is often used in a colloquial (secular) manner that has nothing to do with the word’s religious meaning (just as a “divine” piece of chocolate doesn’t mean that the chocolate is infused with some believed-to-be religious quality or essence).

And with that, I’m done.

Barry