Lazy Atheism?

[Belacqua]

Okay I admit the title is clickbait.  

No, I think "lazy" is the right word. You're arguing in favor of your atheism with the easiest possible 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? 

Do you really think that a literalist reading of Genesis is essential to Christianity? If you think "the world wasn't created in six days" is sufficient to make all of Christianity unbelievable, then I think that's a bit too lazy. 

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

Well, sure... If you focus on the simple stuff you can knock down a straw man or two and then go home satisfied. But you've made it too easy on yourself. 

You know the Archbishop of Canterbury doesn't believe in a literal Genesis, and is quite aware that arguments against sodomy or abortion are not clearly stated by Jesus? Non-lazy people might look into the theory of natural law, which is used by many Christians (since at least the time of Thomas Aquinas) to argue against certain practices, even if there is only tenuous biblical support for this. 

You don't have to learn anything about the history of Christian thought. Lots of people have long happy lives without knowing anything about it. But if you're going to be making claims about the believability of what Christians have said, it might make sense to know what the smart ones think.