if someone is going to believe in the word of a God, then they should believe in every single word of that God, otherwise they are a hypocrite and don't really believe in that God.

Your argument is based on the fact that either (1) the bible is the inerrant word of God, or (2) Christians claim that the bible is the inerrant word of God.

Atheists and non-fundamental Christian agree that (1) is not true. Only fundamental Christians claim (2) is true.

So, your logic doesn't stand against non-fundamental Christians.

If you want to call me a hypocrite, please point to me to a Roman Catholic tenet that says that every single word in the bible is the inerrant word of God. Or, maybe argue to me that every single word in the bible is the inerrant word of God.

Also by your logic, Muslims who don't think the new or old testament is the direct word of God but believe that the Koran is the direct word of God would be believing in a different God than Christians and Jews. While most Christians, Jews and Muslims would agree that we believe in the same God.

Please quote me the passage in the Christian bible where it says that Christians can pick and choose which passages of the bible to "interpret"?

You seem to be stuck in the idea that the Christian faith must be based solely on the bible.

It doesn't. It never needed to. Most Christian faiths don't. (By the way, I would be amused if you quote me a passage from the bible that says you have to take every word in it as the inerrant word of God)

Your argument also seems to be based on your belief that (1) God is a fabrication (2) based solely on the Bible.

From a point of view of Christians, (1) and (2) are both wrong. (1) God actually exists. (2) Since he exists he exists even if you don't believe in parts of the bible, or even if the bible never existed.

From a Atheist's point of view, (1) God is a fabrication made by humans. That 's a valid interpretation of history.

But for a Atheist to understand this fabricated Christian God, he has to research the actual history and teachings of the various Christian faiths. If he does, he would notice that they are usually not based on the belief that the bible is the inerrant word of God. History will show that (2) humans fabricated God based somewhat on the bible, but were also strongly influenced by other religions, political influences, local customs, practical experience, logic, etc.

Are you telling people that they should believe in a particular interpretation of a book when you don't believe in that book at all? I call that real hypocrisy.

If someone claims their belief is correct "because it is written in the bible, and that's all the evidence it needs" than you can challenge them about cherry picking parts of the bible. If they claim "every word in the bible is true and should be literally interpreted", you can point out the many contradictions in the bible. I, a Roman Catholic, won't stop you.

But those claims are a minority within the Christians. For starters, the Catholics and the Orthodoxes don't claim that. (I believe many Protestant faiths don't claim that either.)

If you want to criticize non-fundamentalist Christian, you should criticize them for what they believe in (which may be based on parts or the bible, or not). Not what you think would make more sense for them to believe.

I think you are either

1. just whining because it is relatively easy to show that atheism is more sensible them fundamental Christianity, but it's not as easy to show that atheism is better then non-fundamental Christianity, or
2. you are a fundamental Atheist, so can sympathize with fundamental Christian more then you can with non-fundamental Christians.