1. The Bible is ridiculous.
The indictment that the Bible is ridiculous is one of Rosch’s more ludicrous reasons to be an atheist. The assumption from Rosch is that all (or at least most) Christians are ignorant about the stories in the Bible. He highlights two passages in particular that do not get much attention, claiming that the “hilariously ridiculous stories” are the only things that spice up an otherwise boring book.
While there are several strange stories in the Bible, highlighting those stories (or misrepresenting them as Rosch does when he makes the account in Matthew 27 sound like some sort of zombie attack) undercuts the immense value and depth of thought found in the Bible. To call the Bible a mere book of “boredom peppered with ridiculousness” is to entirely overlook the immense literary value found in the Bible.
Here, I will not even speak to the book’s value as an authority on the human condition or ultimate reality since I know that Rosch would not give such an idea the chance to draw a breath before he tuned it out. Without a doubt, though, the Bible has been one of the most (if not the most) influential books in the course of Western philosophy and society. To deny that demonstrates an ignorance of history and literary tradition.
Cross Section 
The Bible is one of the most important collections of books ever assembled. Regardless of their personal feelings regarding the Bible most people, at least in the western world, would admit that it has shaped much of the way they and their predecessors approached thought and understanding.
After all, it has only been within the last three centuries that science has come to prominence as a perceived valid and overriding explanation of the natural world. Before that nearly everyone, regardless of their intellectual capacities, looked to God as at least an explanation for the so-called “gaps,” pardon the phrase, of the universe.
Rosch seems to be simply venting his personal frustrations instead of making well assembled and meditated arguments for the “ridiculous(ness)” of belief. There may be legitimate arguments for non-belief in a diety but Rosch does not present them here.
You bring up some good points. I think that it is of utmost importance to take claims like Rosch’s very seriously.
Overall, his reasons for disbelief are not bad ones. They are problematic, to be sure. To say that no response to his concerns exists, though, demonstrates an unwillingness to look into the theist response.
With those responses, new questions arise, but this allows the dialogue to continue. I don’t think the discussion should ever stagnate.