Lazy Atheism?

[Jillybean]

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.

[arewethereyet]

I was raised Catholic but none of it ever really took with me. The Bible stories I was told as a kid, I saw as just stories with some sort of lesson - or threat.

Moving to a Catholic town when I was 11 didn't help...no one seemed to practice what they supposedly believed in. I went to mass and to Catholic schools and still none of it really impressed me.

I went on a quest in my early 20s thinking that I HAD to believe in something religion-wise. I looked around and nothing spoke to me.

For the last ten or so years I have been active on atheist forums. I have learned more about the Bible and about other religions than I did in 7 years of Catholic school and 5 years of Catechism classes before that.

[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

[Jillybean]

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

Quotes from Paul on abortion? I'm aware he condemned homosexuality, but what did he say about abortion?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

(Bold mine)

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

Boru

Quotes from Paul on abortion?  I'm aware he condemned homosexuality, but what did he say about abortion?

Romans 1:28-32. While it doesn’t specifically mention abortion, it talks about murder and depravity, which many fundies claim includes the killing of the unborn.

Boru

[Jackalope]

Lazy atheism -

If an omnipotent god created me, it would necessarily know what would convince me of it's existence. I can conclude that either such a god did not create me, or it doesn't care that I don't believe, which I am happy to oblige.

[Jackalope]

Quotes from Paul on abortion?  I'm aware he condemned homosexuality, but what did he say about abortion?

Romans 1:28-32. While it doesn’t specifically mention abortion, it talks about murder and depravity, which many fundies claim includes the killing of the unborn.

Boru

Sure they claim that, while twisting their brains in a knot looking for scriptural support.

I tell you, that God character is a terrible communicator.

[brewer]

1. Provide me concrete evidence for god(s) existing and I'll consider it. 
2. No one can argue/debate god(s) into existence.

Is that lazy enough?

[Foxaèr]

The epitome of lazy atheism: I'm an atheist because I trust other atheists know what they're talking about.

[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.