I believe in God, although I don't call myself a Christian. But I wouldn't be angry in any case. the Bible IS myth. Most people outside of an anthropological or sociological context have a basic misunderstanding of what myth and mythology actually mean. The term myth, in and of itself, does NOT mean untrue. Myth can be broadly defined as a narrative or traditional story, usually accepted as "history," and intended to explain the cosmology, world view, ideology, practices, etc. of a given culture. But even if the whole "untrue" bit was levelled against the Bible, so what? What's to be angry over? Are Bible believers anymore immune to charges of myth than the other religions that many Christians regularly refer to as myths? For a sociology class a hundred years or so ago, I had to read a text called "Myths are Somebody's Religion." That's a very true statement I think. For my part, I prefer the late mythographer Joseph Campbell's statement that "myths are the popular expression of man's deepest knowledge." That doesn't mean false. It means we work with what we have. It doesn't matter that myth is, for all day-to-day purposes, "untrue." After all, defining and expressing that which is, by nature, "ineffable" (i.e., God) can never be an accurate task. Anyone who tells you that he or she knows all the truth is either ignorant or lying.

I get riled up when people dismiss my relion as bunk and then turn around and expect me to respect their beliefs. If we are to get along we need to get over putting down someone else's beliefs.

No. It's their belief.

Nope. That's there belief or opinion it doesn't effect my personal beliefs unless I let it, so what's the point of getting upset?

Only if they don't back themselves up- for instance, I have been in any number of conversations where people toss that accusation, and don't back themselves up. They need to give an example- unlike any other religion, Christianity historically is- well- historical, based in fact! Basically, I react by asking for an example that shows it is mythology or false or full of contradictions or what have you. Most people that I ask that to stop right there because they've never investigated the claims. Now, if they've got something beyond that, which certainly does happen, I usually just follow wherever they got that from- and hopefully have a healthy discussion!

I certainly don't, 'cause I don't care about the Bible. God, maybe, but the Bible is nothing that anyone should make a big deal out of.

Not angry as such, but I will come to its defence. I find that most people have very little ideal of the historical accuracy of the Bible down to tiny details, and the fact that it is a primary source for many historical disciplines because of that. Few also take the time to study and find out that textual criticism establishes that the bible's authenticity. Most just regurgitate the opinion of someone else's best friend's brother's barber who read something on Wikipedia.

No crankier than evolutionists get when their belief is called an unproven theory.

1) There are different kind of people out here who could answer this question: - theists who just believe in some kind of "god", or at least do not exclude their existence, but do not consider the Bible as something else as an ancient book - mainstream Christians, who will consider the Bible as a sacred book, but who will not consider everything in the Bible as an absolute truth, but find in it partly a chronik of past events (no always having historical accuracy), moral rules (not always still to be followed), explanations about the origin of the universe (without much scientific value, but with a high symbolic value) - Bible fundamentalists, who will consider the Bible as a highly sacred text, where absolutely every word is absolutely and literally true, so that every scientifical discovery which contradicts that truth must be false, whichever proofs it would bring. - Atheists, who also answer questions if they are nicht addressed by the question... 2) "The word mythology refers to a body of myths–stories that a particular culture believes to be true and that use the supernatural to interpret natural events and to explain the nature of the universe and humanity. Mythology also refers to the branch of knowledge dealing with the collection, study and interpretation of myths, also known as mythography" "As discussed above, the status of a story as myth is unrelated to whether it is based on historical events. Myths that are based on a historical events over time become imbued with symbolic meaning, transformed, shifted in time or place, or even reversed. One way of conceptualizing this process is to view 'myths' as lying at the far end of a continuum ranging from a 'dispassionate account' to 'legendary occurrence' to 'mythical status'. As an event progresses towards the mythical end of this continuum, what people think, feel and say about the event takes on progressively greater historical significance while the facts become less important. By the time one reaches the mythical end of the spectrum the story has taken on a life of its own and the facts of the original event have become almost irrelevant." Source and further information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mythology 3) particularly Bible fundamentalists would possibly get angry if you formulate that the things that they believe to be true are not absolute truths, but only "stories that a particular culture believes to be true". Mainstream Christians would be here probably more tolerant, and accept for instance the fact that the world could not have exactly originated as it is described in the books of Genesis. 4) I let usually people think and say as they like. I would not get angry. My meaning is that some interesting truths can be found in the old texts of different religions and philosophies, and I would usually not put one of them above the others. However, many of those statements cannot be taken literally. Science should make its own discoveries and not cling to those descriptions which you can find in old texts.

Not at all but I do challenge them to give evidence for their viewpoint.