Lazy Atheism?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Okay I admit the title is clickbait.  I love the fact that so many atheists have a lot of knowledge about certain religions and are able to deconstruct the texts.  However it has always seemed to me that since "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" the burden of proof should fall on the religious rather than those who disbelieve.

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? 

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

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.   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. 

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.

(Bold mine)

They focus on those because - whether they admit it or not - Christians prefer Paul to Jesus.

Boru