Lazy Atheism?

[Belacqua]

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?

I think you're making a category error. 

Apparently you think the Bible was intended to be something like a science textbook, or a newspaper article. Just the facts. There seems to be a sort of assumption that the better a book is, the more it approaches the instructions that come with Ikea furniture -- absolutely clear, incapable of misinterpretation, and purely functional. 

Why people believe that I don't know.

Have you ever read Plato's Symposium? This is more along the lines of the literature that isn't intended to have easy clarity. In this book, after an introduction that makes it clear how historically unreliable the narration will be, a series of characters make speeches on a single topic, completely contradicting each other. After the final speech, the sexiest boy in town, extremely drunk, crashes the party and complains that Socrates won't fuck him. Then they all go to sleep. In the morning Socrates gets up and goes to the gym. The end. 

This is one of the most important, influential, and beautiful texts in all of history. If it didn't exist, Western thought would be different. No definite conclusions can be drawn from it, and it is still a fantastically wise book, and continues to be worth reading and re-reading. 

The Bible is more like that.