Lazy Atheism?

[Thumpalumpacus]

My lazy atheism: my bullshit detector is ringing off the hook.

I could drill down into the whys and wherefores, but I can't be bothered in most cases, because ...


... wait for it ...

I'm too lazy

[brewer]

3. Man created god(s), time to grow the fuck up.

[Spooky]

In a choice between God or bacon and butt stuff, I choose bacon and butt stuff.

[no one]

Well, godiboi is an asshole. And quite full of shit.

[Angrboda]

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'm not sure how one is going to split that baby. If Adam and Eve aren't literal, then Christ's sacrifice becomes pointless.

[Jillybean]

My original point was really that it doesn't actually take in-depth analyses of the Bible or theology to prove that religion is wrong. I think both sides get lost in the details when there's a huge neon sign flashing in front of us. If Genesis isn't literal, then why would we think any other part of the Bible is literal? Actually if we can point to many things that are demonstrably and obviously false, it's at least a reasonable theory that the entire text is unreliable.

Laziness, or picking one's battles?

[Belacqua]

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

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'm not sure how one is going to split that baby.  If Adam and Eve aren't literal, then Christ's sacrifice becomes pointless.

Some Christians agree with you. 

You may be surprised how many don't.

[Belacqua]

If Genesis isn't literal, then why would we think any other part of the Bible is literal?

This is a good question, but it seems as if you don't want to work on the answer.

[Thumpalumpacus]

My original point was really that it doesn't actually take in-depth analyses of the Bible or theology to prove that religion is wrong.  I think both sides get lost in the details when there's a huge neon sign flashing in front of us.  If Genesis isn't literal, then why would we think any other part of the Bible is literal?  Actually if we can point to many things that are demonstrably and obviously false, it's at least a reasonable theory that the entire text is unreliable.

Laziness, or picking one's battles?

Right, the god of the Bible collapses under the weight of contradictions. Not my problem to solve or explain.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

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

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'm not sure how one is going to split that baby.  If Adam and Eve aren't literal, then Christ's sacrifice becomes pointless.

Not necessarily. There's a school of thought that Adam and Eve are simply representations for humanity. In fact, in Hebrew, the word 'adam' functions as a pronoun for both an individual male and for all mankind. That said, it's not implausible that Christ's sacrifice is for the atonement of the sins of humanity, not for the 'original sin' of two people.

We can blame Paul for the confusion.

Boru