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

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.

Are you talking about "truths" or "universal principals". Don't doubt it has a lot of the latter mixed in with the crazy stuff, but the bible isn't the only source of universal prinicipals, and you hear so much of the crazy stuff all the time to understand that it's probably not the best source.

The bible's credibility is down the toilet. There is so much in it which IS absolutely false/contradictory/absurd, why should anyone who has come to such a realization bother trying to cull from it what little truth there may be. And once you dismiss the Bible, the Torah, the Quran, the Bhagavad Gita, etc...there's a whole of Philosophy, Literature, and actually reputable History, to explore. Why waste time giving the Bible some unearned exalted status amongst all the other potential sources of truth? And don't even get me started on Christ!

have you read and dug deep with the Book of Mornon, Scientology or any other books put forth as The Way?

The bible was written by men, for the benefit of men.
The history of it is more interesting to me than what's contained in it.
Every translation, every time it was copied, it was altered to reflect the beliefs and agendas
of whomever was financing the translation or copying.
The people weren't even "allowed" to know what was in it for centuries.
The catholic church kept the contents secret for hundreds of years, and only
allowed their representatives to disseminate certain parts of it to the people.
After the invention of the printing press, it was a crime punishable by death, to
copy the bible and distribute it among the people.
When the King James version was written, every reference to "woman as prophet" was
changed to "woman as servant".
I think what truly appalls me, even more than just the belief that the bible is the "word of god", is the complete ignorance of the book's actual history.
These believers have no knowledge of the history of their "holy" book, or their religions.\
It is in no way a history book. Granted, some factual events have been included, but I really think that was just calculated to make it appear more credible. It's not a reference
book, that's for damned sure.

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.

I guess my question is: why do you assume people did not read it?

You are entitled to your own views. How do you know who has done research or visited the holy sites ? I'd worry about your own beliefs not others.

As a child I was indoctrinated to believe that the catholic faith had the only real truth, further that those who didn't believe in it were all wrong.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't know of any religion that is not based hearsay and myth. Is there any religion that accepts science, reason and free enquiery as a guidline to follow? If so that makes all religions false in the same way.

Its not about being certain for me personally. I don't claim to be certain about anything. Instead I say that any evidence I have been presented with, claiming there is a god, has failed to stand up to any sort of scrutiny.

Also, whilst I imagine it could be quite interesting to study the bible, the idea that you cannot care about the truth without studying the bible is something that I disagree with. I would say you are better off reading about the evidence (falsifyable eidence) that gives us the best idea of the way our universe works. This leads to a naturalistic, godless universe anyway.

Also the idea that if you say, 'well I don't know exactly how we all got here' means that you have to subscibe to the thinking that 'well, as long as you don't have every detail, I will believe in my god, because it explains exactly how we got here'. This is not rational for me.

Lastly, why the bible, and not all the other religious text? Personally I happy saying that if there is evidence out there for something beyond our natural universe, then let me take look. I doubt very much that the evidence would stand up to any sort of ridicule, but if you care about the truth (and not what you want the truth to be) you should go out of your way to listen to the arguments/evidence. Studying the bible in full is not necessary for me, as you can already dismiss things adam and eve, noah's ark, and living inside a whale, just by looking at scientific evidence.

Six years in a Catholic grade school let me know that it couldn't be that great of a read. There is some truth in a lot of books

Even a stopped watch is correct twice a day.
People only look for truth in the bible because they already believe it is a book of truth.

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.

Not believing without evidence? Because I think religion is retarded I don't need evidence. I grew up in church and I've read most of the Bible. I can see going to school and studying the Bible if you believe it but why would I waste my time studying something I don't believe? Theres lots of books on lots of religions that I have no intention of reading just in case they might contain an actual fact.

I came to disbelieve out of logical contingency at age 8. My fascination with mythology finally allowed me to read and study it's history, reaffirming that which I could know, with that I had not.