Why are atheists so autistic when it comes to understanding mythology? Yes, yes the stories aren't true...

Why are atheists so autistic when it comes to understanding mythology? Yes, yes the stories aren't true, but they don't grasp what is actually being said in the story about the human condition. And proceed to fail at comprehending marriage and law and human behaviors, etc.
(Hell, it's like Jimmy Neutron ruining a good ghost story when all we want is enjoy a good scare but he's all hung up on "It isn't real".)

All they seem to grasp from Greek mythology is "Dude, the gods are so horny LMAO"

That's false the bible is true

The stories are true though.

Because above all else, atheists are obsessed with being "right."

They care about nothing except both mental and physical masturbation.

Agnostic here.

Probably because what is mythology for religious people is replaced in the minds of atheists by """profound quotes""", """brave stories of minorities""", degenerate entertainment and worshipping astrophysicians or literal TV hacks like Carl Sagan who chip out political opinions.

SORT

Atheists pray with twitter hashtags.

LOL ITS JUST A STORY BRO IT WAS JUST FOR ENTERTAINMENT BRO THEY MADE UP MYTHS BECAUSE LIKE THEY DIDNT HAVE TV BRO THEYRE JUST STORIES FROM PRIMITIVE SOCIETIES DUDE STORIES LMAO NOT LIKE SCIENCE WHICH IS PROVEN AND IS A REAL FACT

Atheists aren't worth arguing with and they don't even know it yet.

Because they are emotional.

Atheism is denying a negative claim, which is impossible to prove or to falsify. So its wholly nonintellectual, and that is a fact.

Christopher Dawkins isnt a physcist, he is a biologist. Bill Bye just has a bachelor's in engineering. These are "pop" scientists. They are lying and are pleasure seekers and will deny Creation so they can indulge in looking at child porn and having sex with their moms and not feel guilty.

Just ignore them. They are losers and crybabies.

i cant speak for others but that is always what i have argued about. not that the standards of the bible and other sacred documents set forth a standard for human decency and conduct. hell i base my life around Christianity, but i cant accept that they are accurate factual stories, but rather examples for human conduct. i would argue the most militant are catholic fucks who attack protestants, pagans, athesists etc. I mean when was the last time you saw a christians btfo thread. because so far i have seen 2 atheists btfo threads in the first two pages.

Heh
I bet you think you are some kind of intellectual genius like Jordan Pepeson
Well guess what bucko
Roughly speaking
You're wrong!
Pathetic weasel

Well, we're on Sup Forums, and right wing religious viewpoints are just more popular. Look up christian owned on Youtube.

/his/tory fag here
Back when I used kikebook I would folow a few "fact pages" because a few of their posts were history related and interesting to me. What pissed me off about Athiests since the beginning was that they would deny the existence of almost anything in the bible. There's plenty of evidence that king Solomon, David, and other old testament characters existed, even the existence of Jesus, be it holy or just him simply existing as a regular mortal man. It's like saying the Egyptians didn't exist because they were in the bible. Atheists have this pretentious air around them, as if they've surpassed everyone else in terms of intelligence simply because they don't believe in God.

Of course, i don't consider that a problem. It's fucking annoying to see people arguing at a time like this when the white race needs so much help, the right cant be divided. There is time to argue about this once the real (((enemy))) has been defeated.

>Yes, yes the stories aren't true, but they don't grasp what is actually being said in the story about the human condition.

The problem is that many people read things like Genesis and believe that a snake literally talked to Eve.

I agree, divisiveness is getting disgustingly out of hand. Everyone is in their own bubble. We're all treating it like sports teams.

There is a very real statistical correlation between having autism and being an atheist.

Not all atheists are autists
but most autists are atheist

Here's a list of biblical prophecies Christ fulfilled. If I were you I'd humor me and read it.

>> accordingtothescriptures.org/prophecy/353prophecies

Remember when Jimmy got literally cucked by Timmy Turner?

They're arguing the opposite viewpoint that a true believer does; with the same vehemence. So you could say both sides are being equally as autistic.

>yes the stories aren't true, but they don't grasp what is actually being said in the story about the human condition. And proceed to fail at comprehending marriage and law and human behaviors, etc.

Seriously, what is the difference, then, between the Bible & the Silmarillion, or Lord of the Rings? Or the Quran?

>The problem is that many people read things like Genesis and believe that a snake literally talked to Eve
The problem with THAT is, though; how do you cherry pick which parts to discount as mythology, and which parts to interpret literally?

YOU'RE NOT HOT SHIT

>implying Satan is real

Athiests understand metaphors and allegories just fine.

The problem is when you make laws based on fables, dumbies dont understand.

Where is god? Why doesn't he enforce his laws. Because he doesn't exist, which creates a power vacuum.

The vacuum gives rise to violent extremism.

silence

>Yes, yes the stories aren't true,
Sounds like youre the dumb fucking autist. Why does your dumbfuck stoner vision matter more than the actual Bible which couldn't be more clearly the absolute word of God.

They do understand the metaphors, it's just the metaphors are either shit (Job) or people keep taking them as literal truth (Evangelicals).

>Making comparison to popular media.
This is liberal tier shit. Opinion discarded.

The Silmarilion is basically the Bible adapted to German myth. It has the same values as Roman Catholivism because Tolkien was a devout Catholic. If you want to worship Iluvatar, then be my guest.

You shouldn't believe what's in the koran because the koran is evil.

>If you want to worship Iluvatar, then be my guest
>You shouldn't believe what's in the koran
I'm not talking about belief or worship; I interpreted OP's statement as making the case for the Bible & Christianity being used as an allegorical, mythological guide for one's life, laws, & system of morals; in which case you could substitute almost any other fictional or quasifictional mythology presenting a "good", usable system of morals.

>comparison to popular media
>liberal tier shit

One could make the case for the Bible being, at best, borderline popular media. It moves a lot of merch.

Belief in god/religion is stratified by IQ:

under 85: can't abstract a god or objective morality, atheist
85-95: can abstract an objective morality, believe in god and whatever religion they're taught
95-105: generally smart enough to see some logical/scientific inconsistencies in the most basic of church teachings, but follow the religion and believe in god because of the social good and order it brings
105-130: smart enough to be edgy atheists, enjoy poking holes in theological teaching mostly be copypasting dawkins, reject god and religion because they're utopians who think they can do better than millennia of experience and distilled wisdom.
130-145: Generally find it very hard to be religious due to the logical and scientific flaws, but follow the morality of religion because they can see the value in it.
145 and over: see the mystery of the universe and fully appreciate religious teachings, seeing past the superficial logical flaws to the deeper spiritual meaning. Generally religious, very few atheists.

>Seriously, what is the difference, then, between the Bible & the Silmarillion, or Lord of the Rings? Or the Quran?
The Bible is a far better examination of the human condition due to how it evolved over time. Duh.

>The problem with THAT is, though; how do you cherry pick which parts to discount as mythology, and which parts to interpret literally?
Maybe do even the bare bones research into Biblical scholarship? There ARE ways to tell. Hint: there's a reason there are multiple books in the Bible.

Better than works that came after it? The events of the Bible end 2 millennia ago, well before the period of the most significant, exponential human advancements.

Interestingly, yes. Read Anti-fragile by Taleb. Non-perishable items, like books, typically increase their lifespan the older they are. So if a book remains in print for 1700 years, then you can reasonably expect it to remain in print another 1700 years.

Look around you. Do you really think humanity has advanced all that far in 2000 years? You still live in a house, sleep on a bed, sit in a chair, eat at a table with silverware, walk on roads, wear shoes, I could go on and on. Modernity is basically the skin of the apple when you're talking about human advancement.