I read Christian literature because I was raised with it and I enjoy atheism more the more I understand the true place of Christianity. — Gregory

Indeed, coming to terms with one's past can be a reason to read the Bible (if one was raised Christian).

Can we say than the the Bible can only give us something subjective? — Gregory

That would make it rather useless.

Augustine was plainly struggling to interpret the meaning of the Creation myth of Genesis. As that quote showed, he realised that creation really could not have occupied seven 24 hour days - there were no days before there was an earth, that was understood even in the 4th Century. — Wayfarer

I read David Bentley Hart on this and I recall him suggesting that Augustine understood Torah stories as allegorical. Not sure that patristic understanding of the stories ever took them as literal truths . Even the Apostles, particularly Paul saw the work as allegorical and were not literalists.

"As should be obvious, Paul frequently allegorizes Hebrew scripture; the 'spiritual reading' of scripture typical of the Church Fathers of the early centuries was not their invention, nor just something borrowed from pagan culture, but was already a widely accepted hermeneutical practice among Jewish scholars. So it is not anachronistic to read Paul here as saying that the stories he is repeating are not accurate historical accounts of actual events, but allegorical tales composed for the edification of readers."

David Bentley Hart. The New Testament: A Translation. Yale University Press:

It's significant how much of the new atheist polemics relies on rebutting a literalistic interpretation. But for those who never understood them as literally true, the fact that they're not literally true is not that important. They're speaking to a moral dimension of experience, not trying to give a literal account.

Agree. Which is why I have never really seen the New Atheists as anything more than fundamentalist busters. A job worth doing, but not philosophy. Bishop Shelby Spong did similar work as a devout allegorist. His book Rescuing the Bible From Fundamentalism[/i] contained everything Hitchens tried to do but managed to retain the baby.

The question was, why do the non-religious read it. — baker

The agnostics read it too.

I'm against the whole taking the Bible absolutely literally thing. God never was the property of man. There are things I choose to believe God is, but among these is "more than anything written thereof."

A higher power was conceived of and brought ancient sages much insight. But, to be reasonable, there were always poets and storytellers.

I don't take Genesis completely literally, though there is probably more to the allegory than meets the eye. If I took enough drugs I could probably become convinced of my own perceptions of the beginning of all creation, y'know? And I might try to make it beautiful to read and accidentally, thereby, make it impossible to understand out of historical context.

God's existence doesn't hinge upon its accuracy, but let's be realistic. And at the same time be highly whimsical, because human history IS weird.

Like Ezekiel -- lazy to just dismiss...but...WTF?