How do you deal with a religious family?

[Aractus]

My beliefs are just that the bible is bullshit and just started as a way to try to control society

I would re-think that belief. For three reasons. Firstly, it is much, much better to find the common ground. Secondly, that argument doesn't hold at all for the New Testament which is really all that Christians are interested in, and thirdly, the OT was written from around 1200 BC over the course of 5-600 years or so. The oldest books, including the pentateuch, seem to have been written around 1200 BC, but no one knows for sure when. Most historians would agree that the Hebrew tradition goes back much further than that, which means their religious beliefs and customs are widely believed to have been around well before they were written down. To deny someone that history and claim that it was all made up at or around 1200 BC would require at least some evidence since you're the one making the claim.

As to the common ground, my approach would be this: Christianity is a faith, and as it is a faith it requires believing in something you can't prove or disprove. As that is the case, Christians may be wrong, but also non-Christians may be wrong, neither side has absolute proof. For some people, they are willing to believe in their faith, and for others they are not, and in either case people are entitled to make up their own minds to come to their own beliefs.

---

This is how I would state my belief to a Christian. 1. We agree that the Pentateuch was written around 1200 BC or so, and that all of the events in Genesis either happened thousands of years prior, or were centuries-old legends that were written down, or a combination of both. None were contemporary, nor were they ever recorded as contemporary history in written form. We also agree that the Exodus that occurs in the book of Exodus was written at the very least a couple of centuries after the supposed Exodus was meant to have taken place. We also agree that in our society today, 1 in 4 people will at some time suffer from a diagnosable mental illness, in biblical times they didn't know about mental illnesses, and so there's no way to know who was and who wasn't suffering from a mental illness in the Bible. Suppose it could be proven, for instance, that Abraham existed. Further to that if it were also to be proven that he didn't ever suffer from a mental illness then perhaps he'd count as a credible person to listen to. On the other hand, suppose it was proven he existed and that he suffered from a serious mental illness, such a discovery would have a profoundly different effect to the meanings of his life and teachings, and whether we would think that he's someone worth listening to and following.

Sadly we can't know either way, nor can we know for Moses, or for Jesus, or for Paul or for Luke, or for the 12 disciples, or for Jesus's brother James, or for Mary and Joseph, or for John the Baptist, or for Jude (the other brother of Jesus), or for the person believed to be possessed by a "Legion" of daemons, or for Barnabas, or for Stephen, or for Timothy, or for Tertius (the person who wrote Romans for Paul), or for Priscilla and Aquila, or for Apollos, or for Silas, or for "John the elder", or for any of the other influential characters in the first century Christian church; but statistically speaking one in four of them suffered from a mental illness.

We also know a lot more about human psychology now than in Biblical times, for instance we know that memory is imperfect, that it can be manipulated, that it can be implanted whether by accident or by deliberate act, we also know that whether a witnesses is absolutely confident or not about an event or detail it is not correlated to what is factual and inaccurate, we now know all witness statements contain inaccuracies. We know all people have false memories - memories of events or actions etc. that never actually occurred. The Bible doesn't give us any eye-witness statements to the life of Jesus, although we do have eye-witnesses to the early first century church in at least "Luke" and Paul (and probably James and Jude as well). Such evidence as the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John could not be considered contemporary since they were written at least 20 years after the death of Jesus. Many theologians believe they were all written more than 50 years after the death of Jesus! They also don't count as eye-witness because the eye witnesses did not write them, therefore their quality as testimony is "hearsay" - ie it would be of no value or inadmissible in a modern legal context. Some of it may be, and probably is accurate. Some of it may not, and probably isn't accurate. It's impossible to know for sure how much is accurate and how much is inaccurate.

Where there are teachings of Jesus that are written and clearly came from differing witnesses we would generally accept those as having happened. So for instance, anything that happens in John AND at least one of the synoptic gospels. This includes, of course, the death of Jesus by crucifixion. Whether there was a resurrection, however, is a debatable point since such supposition could easily have originated from a single source, a person who believed he had seen a ghost or vision of Jesus and had subsequently convinced another person that they too had seen something similar. Every year there are millions of people across the globe who believe they see ghosts, or hear from their loved ones that have passed on. So your theory that there was a resurrection is perfectly valid, but it's also perfectly possible that there wasn't. Either could be the case, neither of us can know for certain.