Lazy Atheism?

[Ravenshire]

At this point I can't really tell who is spewing more nonsense and bullshit.  Is it the pseudo-intellectual or the entitled brat?

Seems to be a dead heat, doesn't it?

[arewethereyet]

At this point I can't really tell who is spewing more nonsense and bullshit.  Is it the pseudo-intellectual or the entitled brat?

Seems to be a dead heat, doesn't it?

Indeed.  At least the latter isn't quite so wordy.

[Paleophyte]

I would love to hear more "lazy atheist" arguments based on the the most basic flawed logic of religious beliefs.  Prima facie simple arguments.  Like do we really have to read the entire Bible when the first few pages of Genesis conflict with scientific facts we now know?  Such as that the genetic diversity of the human race means we could not possibly have evolved from a single mating pair 6,000 years ago? 

Actually, it was a pair of clones getting it on. So way, way worse.

I've always wished that atheist debates with theists would focus more on the basic, simple stuff.

OK, try:

• Scripture is a book of inspiration, written by the faithful, for the faithful. You wouldn't use it as a fashion magazine or cookbook, so why in sanity would you expect it to work as a science text or as the basis for a modern democracy?
  
• We know how your "gods" started out and evolved. It's pretty embarrassing. Pesky Archaeologists.
  
• We also know how your "scripture" got written. In many cases we have the notes from the politicians who decided what made it and what ended up on the cutting room floor.
  
• You realize that scripture makes your god sound like an incompetent nitwit? Like the kind of bungling jackass that killed an entire world because he was too clueless to simply >bamph< a bunch of sinners painlessly into non-existence?
  
• Your religion offers nothing that any of the religions that you scorn don't have. Except maybe Scientology, they give you an extra helping of whack-a-doodle.
  
• Do you have any idea how many times your religion has been hijacked?
  
• "Literal Translation" is a contradiction in terms.
  
• Your god, your scripture. *You* go to hell.
  

Another one for me is why didn't Jesus write down his own teachings (or have someone else write them down at the time he taught), since presumably being God he knew that controversies over authorship would arise in the future?  Certainly if he'd intended to start a new religion, he should have done this.  Why did he not?  This seems like a really important question that gets ignored.

Probably because Jesus never intended for the church to devolve into what it became. He wasn't preaching to Gentiles so he'd have written in Hebrew if he was going to put it down on parchment. Not that apocalyptic street preachers are famed for their careful note-keeping. More the type to wrap a manifesto around a brick and throw it through your window.

When I was a child listening to Mass, I remember thinking that his words to Peter "on this rock I build my church" was clearly metaphorical and only make sense if he didn't actually intend to start a church.

I love this old gag. That line is a later addition and we know that because it's a Greek pun that no Hebrew would have ever uttered. Peter gets his name from the Greek word for rock (petros), so what's really being said is "Rock, you are the rock upon which I build my church". It's the sort of literary joke that the Greeks loved and scattered liberally throughout the Bible. And that means that the Authority of the Seat of Peter is based on a First Century Greek dad joke.

And if Jesus gave a crap about abortion or homosexuality, how come he never mentioned either?  Yet these are things modern Christian fundamentalists/evangelicals focus on to the exclusion of all else.

Because "Saint" Paul was a homophobic dick who hijacked Christianity.

[Elek_the_Chthonaut]

Another thing to do with apologists is ask "Does this prove god, or is it a plot hole"? Most of the time, the arguments usually emphasize a need more than an actual substantial proof of a deity.

[Belacqua]

Another thing to do with apologists is ask "Does this prove god, or is it a plot hole"? Most of the time, the arguments usually emphasize a need more than an actual substantial proof of a deity.

Is this your first ever post on this forum? If so, welcome. 

You bring up a point that's interesting to me. While I don't think most Christians would agree with "plot hole," I do think that a lot of them are happy to agree that there's no proof. And that Christianity is generally more about need than argument. 

And I think this is quite typical for the way human beings think. I don't think it's possible for everything we hold to be true to be backed up by readily available and substantial logical or empirical proof. 

So for example I knew a nurse here in Japan who was raised without any religion (nominally a Buddhist, but not seriously) who converted to Christianity after doing volunteer medical work in Brazil. She was impressed by the charity work she saw and developed a commitment to the values it exemplified. She was uninterested in theology, or arguments for the existence of a supreme being, or anything of that kind. If you asked her "do you really believe that Jesus rose from the dead?" her answer would be along the lines of "well, I guess that's what they say." 

Fortunately there are very few Christians in Japan, and almost none of the terrible TV evangelist type. Those who become Christian almost always do so out of charitable commitment. The first nursery schools here were set up by Christians, and the first women's colleges. They have a good reputation. 

I also knew a married couple -- both doctors, him from Hiroshima and her from Nagasaki. They were active in setting up the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, which got the Nobel in 1985. I once had the bad manners to ask her if she really believed that God created the world in six days, and she answered that she had never thought about it before. It was not what the religion was about for her. 

Then there's Peter Hitchens, whose brother is more famous. (Peter in fact has been right about international relations far more often than his brother was.) When challenged to prove his Christian beliefs, Peter is clear that there is no proof, that his religion is about commitment. He understands that proof for either the existence or the non-existence of God is not going to be available, and that commitment is his choice. I think that far more Christians in the world are of this type. 

I know that this will seem insufficient to modern atheists, of the type who post on this forum. We like to believe that what we hold to be true could be, at least in theory, proven. But we are a minority in the world, and I don't feel comfortable saying that we are inherently better for thinking this way.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

You bring up a point that's interesting to me. While I don't think most Christians would agree with "plot hole," I do think that a lot of them are happy to agree that there's no proof. And that Christianity is generally more about need than argument. 

If Christianity is more about need than argument, why do so many Christians invest so much time and so much effort to construct so many arguments? Your personal heroes - Augustine, Aquinas, et al - were about nothing BUT arguments.

‘Faith is believing what you know ain’t so.’ - Puddn’head Wilson

Boru

[brewer]

Fortunately there are very few Christians in Japan, and almost none of the terrible TV evangelist type. Those who become Christian almost always do so out of charitable commitment. The first nursery schools here were set up by Christians, and the first women's colleges. They have a good reputation.

Kind of sad that people think they have to take up christianity to embrace charity. Charity for charities sake is enough, at least for me.

Sounds like the deed is charity and christianity is merely lip service/label. I see little point

[Belacqua]

Fortunately there are very few Christians in Japan, and almost none of the terrible TV evangelist type. Those who become Christian almost always do so out of charitable commitment. The first nursery schools here were set up by Christians, and the first women's colleges. They have a good reputation.

Kind of sad that people think they have to take up christianity to embrace charity. Charity for charities sake is enough, at least for me.

Sounds like the deed is charity and christianity is merely lip service/label. I see little point

In the world as it currently exists, a lot of people motivate and structure their charity through religion. 

We could obviously imagine a world in which things work differently, but that would be counterfactual speculation. Maybe there could be other ways to do it, in scenarios that we would like better.

The point I was making is that people who work this way often don't need anything that you or I would consider proof.

[brewer]

Kind of sad that people think they have to take up christianity to embrace charity. Charity for charities sake is enough, at least for me.

Sounds like the deed is charity and christianity is merely lip service/label. I see little point

In the world as it currently exists, a lot of people motivate and structure their charity through religion. 

We could obviously imagine a world in which things work differently, but that would be counterfactual speculation. Maybe there could be other ways to do it, in scenarios that we would like better.

The point I was making is that people who work this way often don't need anything that you or I would consider proof.

The big question is why tie it to religion? Is it golden ticket? Is it esteem within the community? Can they not find self worth/fulfillment without religion?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Religions are charities. They don't produce much if anything. They need donations, money, time, young boys, etc. to continue in business.