Lazy Atheism?

[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.