You are simply wrong about this. At least since the time of St Augustine (who was around in the 4th century AD, not long after the Christian Bible was compiled into something like its current form), standard Christian teaching has been that much of the Bible is not best understood literally, and, in particular, when its surface meaning conflicts with current science the wise Christian should accept the science, and look for a deeper, non-literal meaning, that is not in conflict with science, in the Biblical text. Largely for this reason, for most of the history of Christianity, reading of the Bible amongst lay Christians was discouraged by the Church authorities. Most Christians did not read the Bible and believe what they read there, they were told what to believe by priests who had been taught to interpret the Bible “properly” (or, probably more often, by priests who themselves had been taught what to believe and what to preach to their flocks by someone else at a higher level in the Church organization who was considered educated enough to read the Bible properly). For centuries the Catholic Church prohibited the translation of The Bible into vernacular languages, and discouraged laypeople from reading it, even in the authorized Latin version.
Widespread reading of the Bible by Christian laity did not arrive until the Protestant Reformation (and even then, only amongst Protestants). The notion that every word of The Bible is to be taken as literal truth is largely a fairly recent invention (going back a century or so) of certain especially extreme Protestant sects in America.
As an atheist myself, it saddens me to see so many atheists apparently buying into the idea that this aberrant brand of Christianity is the whole thing, or somehow the real thing. Of course such an extreme, irrationalist version of Christianity is much easier to refute than the more widespread, more nuanced forms that are closer to mainstream Christian tradition, but such refutations are unlikely to impress anyone. Rational refutations of Biblical literalism will not impress fundamentalist literalists, who have long since enthusiastically embraced irrationality, and they will not impress mainstream, traditional Christians who will justifiably regard the object of the refutation as a straw man that bears little resemblance to what they actually believe.
The vast majority of Christians in no way approve the sorts of things done by the people being pitted in the OP. It is a perversion of Christianity, but one which seems to get as much or more support from atheists as it does from most Christians.
