It's been my research into religions throughout history that has contributed to my being an atheist. There are things we as humans will probably never know and some of us find comfort in using god to explain what we don't know. Why are we here? God made us! What happens when we die? We go see god! Why does the universe exist? God made it! Who made god? Oh, he was always there...
If that was the conclusion of your research, I might declare it was shallow at best.
So basically, and correct me if I'm wrong here, you seem to be coming from the position that a person is always in error if their research into the bible persuaded them towards atheism.
I left the quote chain so that context could be fully understood.
We have another "Can you elaborate on that," vs a loaded question (though here in this instance it's more of a probing statement) on our hands here. The problem is you assume first and ask question later. You formulate an opinion based on shallow reasoning and then choose to perpetuate that opinion in the most personally harmful way possible. You are indeed the malicious liberal stereotype.
My comment is accurate and infers nothing about the "correct" conclusion. What it does do is call into question the simple-minded conclusion of a wholly unexplained "research" project, an answer too "easy" for such a complex issue. It also serves as a challenge to that individual to further explain him or herself so that we can all better understand his or her point of view. That's why my rhetoric isn't definitive in nature.
Which all could easily be accomplished by asking the simple question, "can you elaborate on that"? Instead you made baseless assumptions.
You're being profoundly dishonest to the point where it becomes impossible to engage you in rational discourse. You have no problem throwing out what you would describe as probing statements and loaded questions but the moment that someone addresses the actual implication of these statements you reply with a rather hilarious passive aggressive rant and cry plausible deniability.
Not a surprise really. Religion is a mega-belief, one ingrained into the believer's very personality. It's a belief made up of smaller pillars holding it all up. When one pillar is questioned, they are taken as near personal insults. None of the pillars are based on reason and logic, they are based on emotion and assumption and assertion. Only when a sufficient number of these emotional pillars fall can actual logical reasoning enter the playground easier.