why is the atheist obsessed with the Bible

Secularism is not taught in schools. Atheism is not taught in schools.
The absence of positive reinforcement in favour of a positive belief is not the same as positive reinforcement of the oppsoite negative belief. Not teaching Christianity or Islam or Buddhism or Hinduism is not the same as teaching atheism. The sooner you can make sense of the difference, the sooner you will be able to make useful contribution to any discussion of the matter.By the way, if you want to make general statements,
"public schools need to be free from the religious ways because the secular have a right to proper education and the religious way has failed for over 3000 years. it hasn't smartened people up but dumbed them down, it hasn't stopped teen pregnancies, drugs, violence, and so much more. face it you had your chance and you failed". Funny thing is, the second part above is true: teen pregnancy rates are higher in regions of larger religious influence because they receive substandard education regarding the body particularly the reproductive system; drugs and violence have no correlation to the presence or absence of religion so there is no causative link, so there is no way religion has stopped either. I could add a whole lot of stats about things that are worse in religious areas than in secular/mostly atheist ones -- murder and rape rates, drug offenses, fraud, terrorism, the list goes on -- but we're so far off-topic now that there's little point. Besides, they've been brought up in other threads already; you just clapped your hands on your ears and went "lah lah-lah lah-lah". But why would we move to a different country and start to attack them? It's just as easy to stay where we are and attack the stupidity and ignorance religions have begun growing where we are, without worrying about those other places. Incidentally, if we did go there, we would start attacking the Vedas or the Quran, because that's the predominant text of the creotards there. As others have stated, if the west was Islam- or Hindu-dominated, yes, we would be attacking them and not the Bible, because the Bible would not be a problem.
By the way, we wouldn't last a week because many of those regions have far less freedom of speech and religion than the US and other westernised countries. How about you go over there, start spouting your crap about Jeebus being the Way, telling people that they must subscribe to your brand of the CCI or be doomed, and see how long you last? Wouldn't be more than three days, I think.Again, you fail to sense the difference. If you grow up in a certain culture, and that culture focuses on a particular religion, and that religion is what you often encounter, then that religion is what -- if you ever do -- you will attack, because it is the one you know and . And it is not the purpose of science or the scientific method to talk about a creator or the resurrection. It is not the purpose of history to talk about a creator or the resurrection. It is, in fact, not the purpose of any class whatsoever except a religious studies class to talk about a creator or the resurrection. blah, blah... still preaching? Okay, carry on if you wish, but take it elsewhere please.
The rest of your post just degrades (degrades further, really) into more preaching interspersed with more whinging about atheism and secularism -- despite your obvious ignorance of what either actually is -- mixed into some general statements and shaped into a strawmen: your standard repertoire once again.

As a matter of fact, Percy/Admin owns this site and its contents. He is, from what I can see/hear/remember, either a deist or an atheist.
As an aside, I've been here less than a year and I'm aware of the fact simply through reading what other people say to and about others and what those people say about themselves. Which, leads me to wonder whether you actually read the posts and understand the content, or just skim through them.Secondly, crash's remark was directed at one specific theist who basically joined to abuse and proselytise. It was in response to that theist's claim that atheists attack Christians and particularly the Bible, so Christians were justified in attacking atheists/atheism in return, that .By "our" website I believe crash referred as much to the set of reasonable people as to atheists and/or nonChristians.
It may also mean the people who come here to debate respectfully and with intent to discuss the issues, as opposed to those who come here to abuse and proselytise (as that theist did).I note also that you have previously quoted somebody without considering the mood or context of that message. Perhaps reading in context is something you should learn how to do? But it's not intended for just atheists. It's intended for every member without distinction as to religious preference to discuss Biblical theology, either in support of other discussions and themes, or in support and criticism and comparison of the Bible as a holy text and with other holy texts.Such an extreme relabelling would somewhat defy the point; atheists aren't particularly known for caring what's in the Bible (knowing what's in it is another matter entirely).

There are no "sponsors". Percy owns this site, alone and independently, and his view is acceptance of evolution. As Huntard pointed out, Percy is also a deist, so of course you wouldn't see anything about atheism. So we're determining the ability to read coherently through the length of time someone has been here and the number of posts they make?
I don't know about you, but by actually reading the posts is how I determine it. I prefer quality of content over the amount of it. Each to their own, I guess.I don't like what you write mostly because it's full of apologetics and theo-nonsense. But as you say, "that is good enough for now". If you want to draw his attention to the thread and ask him to post his own explanation, then send him a PM. Otherwise how do you expect him to know or care what is going on in a thread he obviously has ceased participating in?And again, I have explained that he could have easily been referring to the group of people that weren't crazed religious fundies, such as that member, by using "our". The fact that he happens to be an atheist does not mean he always speaks for atheists.
To exemplify: the fact that you happen to be a Christian does not mean you always speak for all Christians (in fact, not that you ever do or could). You don't think they react because they've heard it before and just aren't interested or because they see obvious problems with fundyness?
If you're going to complain that people don't like being told they "need to hear {that} good news" then you should be willing to let Muslims, Hindus, Jews, pagans and Buddhists preach to you whenever they want, without interrupting, without arguing back. But you clearly won't because you are the one with the good news and you are the one that must be allowed to speak. Do you see the problem with acting that way?
Maybe you could change your gameplan accordingly. then we'd all be much much more happier to hear what you say when you start discussing theology. I make an effort to read the first page (gauge initial response to the OP) and then the newest five pages, with reference to any post linked from before that where necessary to gain context of the recent discussions. Where I haven't read the thread that day, I'll go back to reread the last page I saw and work onwards. Perhaps you haven't noticed it because you aren't an atheist?
"Many modern atheists" are regular people and don't care about the Bible any more than they care about Egyptian or Roman mythology -- usually a lot less because those two are actually interesting and varied. The atheists you see online or in public are usually those reacting to Christians like yourself, people who attack atheism while promoting the Bible in its place: if you try to tell someone they're wrong on something using another thing to support that attack, do you really expect them not to fight back?You might see atheists pick on details because the details often contradict whatever attack is being supported by the story. See any of multiple other threads for examples; Jar is especially adept at doing it and there are at least two others with notable skill at pointing out where fundies have got the facts completely wrong.You might also see those details picked on when they are factually incorrect. The examples you give are things that indicate the story is made up using names that somebody saw in a book, because of the historical chronologies compiled from other sources; somebody in the Bible says "this guy was with this guy" or "this guy at this time/during this event" when they were decades apart indicates clearly that they're making shit up. And if you want to keep ignoring the points made so that you can crusade against "the evils of atheism" or play the martyr, I'll just pass you by without a sidelong glance.

By that comment I meant of course that any literalist fundy trying to say it's actual historical fact will be shot down by you demonstrating they are really fictional narratives.My apologies for implying you were an atheist.