I think you made a lot of assumptions. I spent 10 years as a christian trying to prove the faith. REALLY studying the bible and it's formation along with archaeology, actual history, science, and understanding how to remove bias made the book look like the complete fabrication it was.
Once I was honest with that it fell apart and I realized I was atheist.
A large number of atheists became atheists because they actually studied the bible and didn't engage in cognitive dissonance.

Why oh why do you assume that? I myself have read the babble cover to cover (okay, not the begats) 3 times, looked up things many more more. Most of the people on this site have are formerly from religious backgrounds and simply got smarter! I cannot help but notice kind of anasty phrasing to your query and wonder why?

Its very silly to say there id "NO truth" in the bible. Any book of that size is likely to contain some truth. Its equally silly to assert that the Bible is the "Holy Word of God" and all assertions made therein are facts. There are many clear contradictions - do a google.
What is really annoying is the yahoos who believe the bible contains knowledge that supersedes modern science. Science has made amazing progress in the last 2,000 years. Teaching kids that God created the would in seven days is just insane.

I totally agree. The Bible is the most reliable resource on the subject of human nature. That can be said about any book older than 400 years but the Bible is the cream of the crop. Generations of men (yes men as in males) mastered the art of manipulating and controlling others. They took the best work over thousands of years and compiled it into one book. No other ancient or holy book has this advantage.   Manipulating humans is something we have to do everyday. Reading the best training manual on the subject is very wise

I wouldn't be quick to dismiss the Bible as complete nonsense. Actually there is lot of truth and wisdom through its pages. Yet what is written there should not be taken literally and non-critically (which essentially most churches demand). For sure it is not the unquestionable Word of God, as even if it is inspired by Him (if He exists in the first place), it is still a work of Man and as consequence bears all the inherent imperfections of such a work.

Genesis, follow the begatting, and we find The earth is supposedly only a few thousand years old. So it is wrong from the first page. I explain this to religious people, so then they get onto Jesus, so if the old tesstament is all lies, the god dude wasn't there, yet jesus claims to be his son?

I wouldn't look at the bible as anything but an epic mythological saga, along the lines of Odyssey and Iliad. While there is “truth,” for example, archaeologists did find Troy, but it’s more of a story about a particular human perspective on how the world works. In fact, the bible, particularly the Torah, is meant to do one thing... define the legitimacy of the priesthood and determine who’s God gets to rule the day.

There are thee (maybe four) authors of the Torah: P (priest) J (Yahweh—Jerusalem) E (Elohim) and D (Deuteronomist—and some scholars believe that there’s a D2—who might be the same person, writing after the fall of Jerusalem). Then of course there’s the redactor, the guy who put it all together (and it’s a guy).

And it’s all written for one reason. To justify their version of God and vilify the others. P, of the line of Aaron (the Aaronid Priests) elevated Aaron, the temple, and his legitimacy as Moses’ brother. They believed that priests must be of Aaron decent, and could only serve in the temple at Jerusalem.

J and E on the other hand believed that the priesthood should be of the lineage of Moses, and therefore took several digs at Aaron and his legitimacy—but also against the Jerusalem Priesthood. The story of the Golden Calf, for example, was written by E, and has a very political motive. First of all, he’s attacking the worship system at Shechem, AND the Aaronid priests in Jerusalem.

The entire discussion throughout the bible is really pretty simple. Who gets to worship God and where. Since most of the prophets were Aaronid, then it was Jerusalem. That is why they railed against the Israelite kings who allowed “high places,” (these were altars built so that worshippers outside the city could offer sacrifices). The Aaronid priests/prophets HATED that, and consider any king who allowed that an abomination.

This is the story of the bible... legitimacy of God. Because so many people never bother to read its actual history, they remain blissfully unaware of the politics behind it. But that’s what the bible is all about.

Even the New Testament is a political struggle: Paul’s “Christ” versus Jesus’ little brother, James. Paul would win the day because Rome would eventually sack Jerusalem, completely destroying it.

That’s the story of the bible. Who’s God gets the spotlight. It’s a fascinating story, and it’s “true” in that it’s the true story of a struggle for God, the truth is purely political.

Can anyone else see Dida's comments, or it is just me she's blocked? If so, I have to say I feel rather proud.

"I guess what I am asking is how can anyone be so certain of things they admit they did not research?" You mean to be asking Christians that quesiton, right?

The bible is a collection of stories by primative people to explain natural occurrences in a world before science.

Much like how people of Greece and Rome made gods to be responsible for why the harvest died.

I've read the bible. I actually keep a copy of it on my book shelf to whip out in an argument.

(My favorite argument is "if Adam and eve were the first people how did their sons marry wives from the land of Nod, where did these women come from? Did they marry aliens?)

You question should be in the converse. How can so many people be fooled by such a document with no absolute truth to back it up. Have to think about some of the stories. A talking snake? Eve made out a rib? Cain and Abel wives? A boat with the largest zoo ever on it? Losing strength because hair was cut? Turing into a pillar of salt at the sight of an explosion? Parting the red sea, food from the sky? Just a few examples.

I've studied it extensively. There is little I'd call history there. The context around it perhaps is history, but relying on the bible for a history of the people leaves much to be desired.

Going to SDA schools for 11 years, we were taught the bible from a historical and moral perspective; Ancient Hebrew History was what it was called. So now, I have reference points for any discussions or questions of biblical origin, primarily useful for game shows (Jeopardy), and crossword puzzles.

As for the moral lessons, what I mainly learned was humility and the lesson of the Good Samaritan, i.e., treat your neighbor well, and be charitable and kind. But, learning to be a good person derived directly from my parents/family.

Dida - from what I've seen, there is a tendency for Atheist and Agnostics alike to come across as rejecting all things connected with religion (the notion of Christ, of a God or Gods, and Religious literature, such as the Bible and the Torah). Since many of us spend so much time defending our own belief, and non-belief, we can come across sometimes as very closed minded, which is usually not the case.

There is much truth in the teachings of Jesus; living with a kind heart, trying to love and care for those around you, none of that is a bad idea. Personally, I can't reject those notions, no matter where they are documented. As for the historical side of the equation, many people don't know their history; and much is just being uncovered that corroborates Biblical documentation.

Its easy to come across as a naysayer, especially with the Bible. For me, is holds a lot of truth, twisted to create a lot of deception and control. While I can't take the entire document at 'face value', I won't reject the obvious bounty of both moral and historical information it holds.

I think it is based on a little truth myself as theres no smoke without fire. after 2000 years theres a shit load of smoke and a tiny flame.