Who says there's no truth in it? There's truth that was relevant at the time to the control freaks who wrote it. Religion is ALWAYS about control. And how do YOU know what "the message of the christ" is? If he even ever existed.
Matthew 10:34 "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword."
Sounds like a message to me.

Just because I'm atheist, doesn't mean that I rebuke any historical value. What easier way to take short cuts in writing than to add real locations, people, and events?
The difference between myths and legends can easily come into play here.
If you want to classify the bible, it can be considered a book with various myths and legends.

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.

OK, having read the Bible very thoroughly...

The key story of the Bible is Moses. Moses received the original revelation and the Law. Without that, you have nothing. Jesus is the Son of Who exactly?

Guess what, you don't have that. We know that there is essentially zero history in the OT until after the fictional conquest of the Land in Joshua.

Also, Jesus taught these key immoral lessons

1. Have no care for tomorrow, no saving or thrift
2. Shun your parents and family (cult anyone?)
3. Vicarious redemption of sin

Not to mention, the historicity of Jesus has enormous problems. There are no contemporary accounts and the earliest Gospel was written more than a generation after the alleged events. The Pauline and Gospel Jesus could hardly be more different. It's a mess.

Tough question, do you really know the Bible?

I have read it. Several times. I know more about their book than a lot of "christians".

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.

For me it was a few things..like the talking snake & ass..and the rampant incest, murder & general mayhem..

Mostly because it's their job to prove to me. I shouldn't have to go out of my way to disprove their theory by reading their books. I mean a lot of us dismiss Scientology but I sure havent read their stuff. Same with the book of Mormon.

The best, actually the only recorded history of the era that Jesus was suposedly doing his thing is that of the Romans. They had scribes everwhere writting down. everything. No mention of Jesus. I don't know how you went about your researech but if you found a single speck of evidence substatiating the bible I'd love to see it.

"ignoring the bible because of religion seems to be closed minded to me and not much different than simply believing without evidence."

I think you are way off base.

Of course there's some truth in the bible. It's almost impossible to imagine a work of fiction that big that doesn't state truth SOME time.

There is, by similar argument, some truth in Alice in Wonderland, and The Lord of the Rings, and other works of fiction.

The problem are those for whom 'it's in the bible' is a claim of reality - and in that there is no justification at all.

Apparently Dida quit and ran away.

I guess we'll never know if she changed her mind, but I have my suspicions...

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.

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.

The book is not a best seller for its presentation of history of which very little is verifiable. It is a book put together to market religious doctrine. Toilet paper would be the best use for most of it's pages.

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.

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

No different than any other issues, or ideas that many make firm judgements about without knowing much of anything about them ...

What ? People should use their brains !?

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.

The question is what do you mean by "truth"? You can look for moral truths and so on, but as far as I'm concerned truth in the bible should mean historical truth. And the bible is peddled by Christians for its history, especially about the historical and mythological person they call Christ. But it's not a book of history, it's a book of fables.

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