The Mythicist Position

For those who found Zeitgeist part 1 on religion interesting, there's a recently created Mythicist Position, which provides a type of conclusion.

The Mythicist Position is very significant because after all these centuries there has never actually been a clear, succinct position for mythicists who recognize religion as mythology. Members of the Zeitgeist movement aren't even aware that the new mythicist position even exists. So, please inform them and let them decide for themselves if it resonates with them or not.

The Mythicist Position

"Mythicism represents the perspective that many gods, goddesses and other heroes and legendary figures said to possess extraordinary and/or supernatural attributes are not "real people" but are in fact mythological characters. Along with this view comes the recognition that many of these figures personify or symbolize natural phenomena, such as the sun, moon, stars, planets, constellations, etc., constituting what is called "astromythology" or "astrotheology."

As a major example of the mythicist position, it is determined that various biblical characters such as Adam and Eve, Satan, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Joshua, King David, Solomon and Jesus Christ, among other entities, in reality represent mythological figures along the same lines as the Egyptian, Sumerian, Phoenician, Indian, Greek, Roman and other godmen, who are all presently accepted as myths, rather than historical figures.

The Value of Mythicism

"Mythicism has much to offer to those who find it difficult to believe in the gospel story as "history" but who wish to know the deeper meaning behind the story. Indeed, the mythicist position importantly serves as a bridge between theism and atheism, as it does not seek to discount or denigrate the long and exalted history of thought concerning religion and mythology, dating back many thousands of years, as manifested in the religious and spiritual practices of man beginning millennia ago and continuing since then. The pinnacle of mythicist cultures-more specifically those based on astrotheology-can be seen in the massive and mysterious civilization of Egypt, for example. Rather than being ignored and dismissed, such wondrous creations should be explored and treasured as unique and glorious contributions to the overall human accomplishment."

"Again, mythicism allows us to step outside the theist-versus-atheist box and to value the vast human creation of religion and mythology, without being either antagonistic toward it or believing it as dogma. Mythicism goes beyond the ceaseless theist-atheist debate, in fact, which is in the end futile, since cases for both perspectives can be and have been made ad infinitum, under a variety of circumstances, and since experience shows us that this discussion will never be resolved-except, indeed, in the mythicist position, which neither believes nor dismisses but which understands and appreciates humanity's longstanding interest in religion and spirituality. The mythicist position does not necessarily accept religious traditions as based in third-dimensional reality and history. Nevertheless, mythicism itself is rooted in reality and is an end product of freethought and scientific endeavors as well as the recognition of profound human imagination and creativity. The mythicist position allows us to create greater harmony by acknowledging and enjoying the similarities and differences in religious traditions founded upon valid evidence grounded in natural phenomena."

- What is a Mythicist?
stellarhousepublishing.com...

Be sure to read the links in the info box under the video and pass the video around:

The Mythicist Position


The New Zeitgeist Part 1 Sourcebook (2010)
www.stellarhousepublishing.com...

Zeitgeist Part 1 & the Supportive Evidence
freethoughtnation.com...

"The religion section is the strongest of the whole work"

- Peter Joseph

Were George Washington and Thomas Jefferson Jesus Mythicists?

truthbeknown.com...

The 2011 Astrotheology Calendar



I have this and it's really cool. It gives a basic introduction into the world of astrotheology.

Jesus as the Sun throughout History
stellarhousepublishing.com...

Jesus as the Sun God?




From Acharya's FAQ's:

The Son of God is the Sun of God
freethoughtnation.com...

"I find it undeniable that many of the epic heroes and ancient patriarchs and matriarchs of the Old Testament were personified stars, planets, and constellations."

"Osiris is doubly resurrected as his son Horus, too, and he, too, is eventually raised from the dead by Isis. He is pictured as spanning the dome of heaven, his arms stretched out in a cruciform pattern. As such, he seems to represent the common Platonic astronomical symbol of the sun s path crossing the earths ecliptic...."

"I find myself in full agreement with Acharya S/D.M. Murdock"

- Dr. Robert Price, Biblical Scholar
www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com...

"Your scholarship is relentless! The research conducted by D.M. Murdock concerning the myth of Jesus Christ is certainly both valuable and worthy of consideration."

- Dr. Kenneth L. Feder, Professor of Archaeology
www.freethoughtnation.com...

"I can recommend your work whole-heartedly!"
—Dr. Robert Eisenman, James the Brother of Jesus and The New Testament Code, RobertEisenman.com

"Acharya S deserves to be recognized as a leading researcher and an expert in the field of comparative mythology, on a par with James Frazer or Robert Graves—indeed, superior to those forerunners in the frankness of her conclusions and the volume of her evidence."
—Barbara Walker, The Women's Encyclopedia of Myths and Secrets and Man Made God

"I've known people with triple Ph.D's who haven't come close to the scholarship in Who Was Jesus?"
—Pastor David Bruce, M.Div, North Park Seminary, Chicago, HollywoodJesus.com

"Thirty years ago, when in divinity school, I might have had second thoughts about becoming an Episcopal priest if a book like D. M. Murdock's Who Was Jesus? had been available to me."
—Bob Semes, Retired university professor of History and Religion, Founder and Executive Director of The Jefferson Center

"Ms. Murdock is one of only a tiny number of scholars with the richly diverse academic background (and the necessary courage) to adequately address the question of whether Jesus Christ truly existed as a walking-talking figure in first-century Palestine."
—David Mills, Atheist Universe

"Thank you, Acharya, for the important work you are doing. Who Was Jesus? Fingerprints of the Christ just might be the best short introduction to Biblical scholarship yet."
—David Bergland, 1984 Libertarian Party Presidential Candidate, Libertarianism In One Lesson

"...I have found her scholarship, research, knowledge of the original languages, and creative linkages to be breathtaking and highly stimulating."
—Rev. Dr. Jon Burnham, Pastor, Presbyterian Church, Houston, TX

"Acharya S has done a superb job in bringing together the rich panoply of ancient world mythology and culture, and presenting it in a comprehensive and compelling fashion."
—Earl Doherty, The Jesus Puzzle

"The Christ Conspiracy—very, very scholarly and wholly researched—is a book for today..."
-Rev. B. Strauss, ex-Catholic Priest, Chicago, IL

"Amidst the global chaos of George Bush's War on Terror, largely founded on religious intolerance and simplistic notions of good and evil, Acharya S is the voice of reason."
—Joan D'Arc, Paranoia

"D.M. Murdock could well be the most brilliant, insightful and rigorous theologian writing today."
—Robert Tulip

"Acharya S is the ranking religious philosopher of our era."
—John K.

"Acharya S/Murdock deserves an award for her hard work and courage. She is the Galileo of our day!"
—Charles Johnson

"Acharya S knows more about the ancient Mysteries than any living scholar."
—Christopher Knowles

www.freethoughtnation.com...

reply to post by GoldenKnight


In exactly what way is this 'Mythicist Position' new?

It seems extremely ordinary and mainstream to me.

You could try reviewing just about anything by Carl Jung or Joseph Campbell's masterpiece "The Masks of God"

Originally posted by rnaa
reply to post by GoldenKnight

 

In exactly what way is this 'Mythicist Position' new?

It seems extremely ordinary and mainstream to me.

You could try reviewing just about anything by Carl Jung or Joseph Campbell's masterpiece "The Masks of God"

edit on 22/2/2011 by rnaa because: (no reason given)

Yep. I see nothing new here that someone familiar with studying mythology wouldn't already know. (maybe I'm missing something...?)

The word "myth" means a completely different thing in academia than it does in common nomenclature: it generally denotes the stories of a people on which their religion is based(or which explains natural phenomena, deals with heroes, etc.), with no judgment in regards to their truthfulness. Therefore, the stories in the Bible ARE very much myths, though that doesn't necessarily devalue them. Which sounds pretty much like what you're saying.

Originally posted by GoldenKnight

The Value of Mythicism

"Mythicism has much to offer to those who find it difficult to believe in the gospel story as "history" but who wish to know the deeper meaning behind the story. Indeed, the mythicist position importantly serves as a bridge between theism and atheism, as it does not seek to discount or denigrate the long and exalted history of thought concerning religion and mythology, dating back many thousands of years, as manifested in the religious and spiritual practices of man beginning millennia ago and continuing since then. The pinnacle of mythicist cultures-more specifically those based on astrotheology-can be seen in the massive and mysterious civilization of Egypt, for example. Rather than being ignored and dismissed, such wondrous creations should be explored and treasured as unique and glorious contributions to the overall human accomplishment."

If you consider that we homo sapiens arrived on the planet possibly as much as 300,000 years ago and that the invention of writing is very recent, and that the current situation where you have mass literacy is "extremely" recent, and that the arrival of the world's largest research library (the World Wide Web) only happened in the early 90's, then it is unsurprising that in a world where for most of history we have only had an oral tradition, that myths get passed from generation to generation, and through a series of "Chinese Whispers," we end up with numerous fantastical myths. Some of these myths are just moral tales, stories of good and evil, battles between the ancient flying war gods which litter the Vedic scriptures and so forth.

Richard Dawkins in his "God Delusion" describes how the memetic transference of religion occurrs from generation to generation, and it is really rather a statement of the obvious, but it is not at all ovious to those who still adhere to primitive religious beliefs like the word's three great religions of the books (The Bible, the Koran and the Vedas).

Unlike many animals, human children do not survive without a great deal of care and attention. The mother may instruct the child with many moral tales and tell the child to be good and to be safe, and the child will eventually realise that this is for their own benefit and protection. The mind of a child is very vulnerable to indocrination, and this is partly to the child's benefit. A child will often unquestioningly accept the myth of Santa Claus, simply because the child trusts what they are told by the mother.

The mother may say "do not swim in the river with the crocodiles" and the child comes to accept this as good advice for their own safety, but then the mother may tell the child, "We sacrifice a child on every full Moon to appease the gods and to ensure a good harvest." Unlike the Santa Claus belief, which the mother will eventually confirm is just a silly story, the mother may never tell the child that sacrificing children to appease the gods is a bad idea; in fact even when the child grows up to be an adult and questions the idea, the child may find that other adults become angry and that they take such beliefs very seriously.

This is partly why we find the prevailence of religious fanaticism, and the belief in totally irrational ideas, because for many people they have been instilled with such ideas as children, and when they become adults they find that many other adults also take such ideas seriously. Further in a society such as America where 75% of the population claims to be Christian, a person who has such irrational and primitive beliefs is "normal" and the person who rejects such beliefs is in a minority.

I am often reminded of the Hollywood film, "The Matrix;" it is a very good analogy of the reality of the situation in the world; the religious fanatics think that they are the Neos and Morpheuses who are trying to "enlighten" humankind, while the humanists, atheists, New Agers and the opponents of the religious traditions of our ancient and barbaric past also see themselves as the Neos and Morpheusus who seek to awaken humankind from the effects of religious hypnosis and indoctrination; only one of these two groups can prevail, and the signs are that as people become more and more educated they tend to realise the folly of the primitive religions of the ancient world.

It seems that the ultimate cure for the disease of organised religion is a modern, secular, scientific education which teaches a person to subject all ideas to criticism and to the analysis of human reason. Ultimately "philosophy" is not about choosing a particular poitical and moral philosophy; it is simply a method subjecting all ideas to logical and critical analysis, and unfortunately this is relatively modern trend.

I can still recall in my youth of the 1960's and 1970's where "Religious Education" in schools was not about the study of comparative religion, it was rather about indoctrination with the Chritian faith, and unfortunately this is still the case in many parts of the world. Whereas, the modern academic discipline of the study of comparative religion, of which Acharya S., is a good example, is a relatively recent widespread academic trend in the Western world which has entirely replaced the old methods of the "Theological Seminaries," and which rather than indoctrinating a person with a faith, tends in my opinion to eradicate irrational faith and causes us to question all faiths and irrational ideas.

Unfortunately such studies will fall on deaf ears throughout the Islamic world, where irrational and primitive religion may well give rise to future apocalyptic war. Throughout the Islamic world there are a minority of people who are middle class, have modern secular values, are highly educated, speak English and have access to the WWW. Whether they can infect entire populations with the memetic ideas of the modern world quickly enough to avoid future apocalyptic wars is doubtful, especially since from an Islamic perspective such radical ideas are considered "heretical and blasphemous" by the vast majority.

Lux

rnaa & Core90, you clearly didn't watch the video or read any of the links. There has never been an actual mythicist position before. Look it up in any dictionary or encyclopedia and you will find absolutely *NOTHING* - and if you knew what you were talking about at all you already know that.

"Never before has there been such a succinct, clearly explained comprehensive position for mythicists. You should be made aware that the mythicist position outlined above is the very first clear outline of the mythicist position throughout history...."

Evemerist vs. Mythicist Position
www.freethoughtnation.com...

Lux,

"I can still recall in my youth of the 1960's and 1970's where "Religious Education" in schools was not about the study of comparative religion, it was rather about indoctrination with the Chritian faith, and unfortunately this is still the case in many parts of the world. Whereas, the modern academic discipline of the study of comparative religion, of which Acharya S., is a good example, is a relatively recent widespread academic trend in the Western world which has entirely replaced the old methods of the "Theological Seminaries," and which rather than indoctrinating a person with a faith, tends in my opinion to eradicate irrational faith and causes us to question all faiths and irrational ideas. "

This has been the case for me in my own experience as well. One proof is the fact that Archaeoastronomy didn't become an accepted discipline until the mid-90's.

In the 60's Gerald Hawkins figured out that Stonehendge was essentially an astronomical observatory and he was ridiculed for it until the 90's. So, this new understanding of our ancient ancestors origins of religious concepts has turned our old understanding of religion upside down. And much of academia, along with the religious special interest groups, do not want to let go of the old false views.

I like Richard Dawkins at times but, here is a perfect example of why he and so many other atheists fail us all at other times:

Richard Dawkins on ZEITGEIST, Part 1
www.freethoughtnation.com...

Originally posted by GoldenKnight

The Mythicist Position is very significant because after all these centuries there has never actually been a clear, succinct position for mythicists who recognize religion as mythology.

What Carl Jung and Joseph Campbell aren't clear enough?

This position as laid out by the OP is interesting and compelling, with a lot to recommend it. Thanks for posting this, OP.

My only concern here would be that it's not always wise to tie an entire broad-based philosophical outlook (the mythicist position, in this case) too closely with something much more specific, like the Zeitgeist movement. Variations of the mythicist perspective have been with us a lot longer than Zeitgeist and they will be with us after Zeitgeist has been forgotten. So I'd be wary of embracing this association too fervantly.

Originally posted by Student X

Originally posted by GoldenKnight

The Mythicist Position is very significant because after all these centuries there has never actually been a clear, succinct position for mythicists who recognize religion as mythology.

What Carl Jung and Joseph Campbell aren't clear enough?

Then simply go find their "succinct, clearly explained comprehensive position for mythicists" - it doesn't exist. Again, as I made categorically clear - look it up in a dictionary or encyclopedia and you will find *NOTHING*.

What part of that do you not understand?

Carl Jung and Joseph Campbell are greatly appreciated and Acharya S cites them throughout her books, however, they simply never organized a "succinct, clearly explained comprehensive position for mythicists" that could be added to dictionaries or encyclopedias.

Evemerist vs. Mythicist Position
www.freethoughtnation.com...

Originally posted by silent thunder
This position as laid out by the OP is interesting and compelling, with a lot to recommend it. Thanks for posting this, OP.

My only concern here would be that it's not always wise to tie an entire broad-based philosophical outlook (the mythicist position, in this case) too closely with something much more specific, like the Zeitgeist movement. Variations of the mythicist perspective have been with us a lot longer than Zeitgeist and they will be with us after Zeitgeist has been forgotten. So I'd be wary of embracing this association too fervantly.

Point taken, however, I only mentioned that the members of TZM should be made aware of the mythicist position because as of now, they are not even aware that it exists. It appears that Jacque Fresco and his Venus Project have taken over the movement and won't allow any discussion of religion at all. Peter Joseph won't even send out an e-mail to the Zeitgeist movements 500,000 member list letting them know that Acharya S has created the mythicist position, which serves as a type of conclusion to part 1.
www.freethoughtnation.com...

Still, I'm only referring to part 1 and it turns out that it's far more accurate than most are aware or willing to admit at this point in time.

Read -

The New ZEITGEIST Part 1 Sourcebook (2010)
www.stellarhousepublishing.com...

Originally posted by GoldenKnight

I like Richard Dawkins at times but, here is a perfect example of why he and so many other atheists fail us all at other times:

Richard Dawkins on ZEITGEIST, Part 1
www.freethoughtnation.com...

I am deeply suspicious of this video. I think there are SOME revealing similarities between the Jesus myth, and the other god myths mentioned. But there are surely not as many similarities as are alleged here. For example, all those gods being born on 'December 25th.' That would be an amazingly powerful weapon against Christianity if it were true, but it is surely not true. Our system of naming dates didn't even exist when some of those god myths arose. This cavalier use of 'December 25th' is just one example. I am suspicious of many other details on similar grounds. The whole film has the air of something made up, in pursuit of an anti-Christian agenda (with which I happen to sympathize) but with almost complete disregard for truth, which I fear parallels the lies told by religious apologists."

-- Richard Dawkins

I really don't think that Dawkins is being deliberately malicious; he is just unaware of the research which supports the "scatter gun" statements which are made in Zeitgeist part 1. As somone pointed out on the thread you hyperlinked, Dawkins is a biologist; his academic field is not really religious studies, and even if he had asked other scholars in the academic world of religious studies, it is quite likely that they also would not be aware of the supporting evidence of the Zeitgeist claims.

I have graduate degree in "Theological and Religious Studies" and frankly though I have always agreed with the overall thesis of Zeitgeist Part one and I was familiar with "some" of Acharya's writings, even I doubted the historicity of "some of the claims" of Zeitgeist part one, even having read Acharya's companion guide.

However having researched the matter through the links you provided and the videos, I am now quite convinced that all the claims are supportable; I think that part of the problem is that Acharya is really a scholar with quite an extensive number of specialist books and essays on this subject, and Peter Joseph's Zeitgeist is just a short summary of such writings and it is really a populist film whch tries to condense a great deal of pionts into a short film without giving the scholarly basis for such points.

I recall Stephen Hawkins stating that his publisher once told him that for a mass audience, the more scientific formulas he had in his books, the less likely the books would be to sell; similarly with Zeitgeist part I" it would not have been so popular for a mass audience had it been a scholarly academic presentation of the evidence. I think that as the discussions and debates continue, the evidence that Peter Joseph's film can be supported with historical evidence will become more and clear. Acharya's writings are really quite ground breaking and the conclusions of this kind of research are really just not well known in the academic world.

It is not as if Dawkins has a reputation for not listening to rational scholarly arguments; on the contrary, in fact he even states that he wishes that the clams of Zeitgeist were true as it " would be an amazingly powerful weapon against Christianity if it were true." Richard Dawkins does have his own discussion forum on richarddawkins.net... and even if he does not reply personally, I suspect that many of his acolytes are sure to respond to you if you write a friendly but critical response to his above statement, and if you can keep the thread at the top of the forum, it may well be brought to his attention.

Regards

Lux

I can agree with your point about Dawkins, Lux. I was just deeply disappointed that he refused to make any effort to contact Acharya S or read her work to learn more about it - he simply did the hand-waving dismissal without looking into the matter. He really let me down when he did that.

Here's a very interesting thread comparing Sam Harris' work with that of Acharya's:

Acharya's Work Complements Sam Harris's Philosophy
www.freethoughtnation.com...

Acharya S actually has quite a bit to offer and these guys won't help her out at all and that really pisses me off.

Zeitgeist Part 1 & the Supportive Evidence

In the links and posts below you will find a massive amount of documentation validating the claims concerning religion in Part 1 of the first "Zeitgeist" movie. At least with regards to that which cited as its source the work by Acharya S/D.M. Murdock.

Basic factoids concerning Zeitgeist part 1:

Zeitgeist part 1 is only around 25 minutes long and was never created to serve as a scholarly documentary. The transcript and subtitles have been translated into nearly 3 dozen different languages and has been viewed over 100 million times worldwide. All one has to do is read the Q & A at the Zeitgeist website to see how ZG came into existence:

HOW DID "ZEITGEIST: THE MOVIE" COME TO BE?:

"The original Zeitgeist was actually not a "film", but a performance piece, which consisted of a vaudevillian style multi-media event using recorded music, live instruments and video. The event was given over a 6-night period in New York City and then, without any interest to professionally release or produce the work, was "tossed" up on the Internet arbitrarily. The work was never designed as a film or even a documentary in a traditional sense - it was designed as a creative, provoking, emotionally driven expression, full of artistic extremity and heavily stylized gestures.

However, once online, an unexpected flood of interest began to generate. Within 6 months over 50 Million views were recorded on Google Video counters (before they were reset for some reason). The current combined estimates put the number of Internet views at over 100 million as of 2009. Suddenly "Zeitgeist" the event, became "Zeitgeist: The Movie"."

- Peter Joseph

"The religion section is the strongest of the whole work"

- Peter Joseph

www.freethoughtnation.com...

It is estimated that Zeitgeist has been viewed by over 200 million people worldwide in over 30 languages at this point.

This looks like it will be a very interesting film and it will include Acharya S:

"God in the Box" Film

"God in the Box" is a documentary film, which explores the mystery and controversy behind what God looks like and means to us as Americans in the 21st century. In the midst of today's fractured and confusing claims on God, the film asserts two basic questions: What does God mean to you? What does God look like, to you?

The filmmakers embark on a cross-country journey with their small, mobile studio (and main character), The Box. They invite people to step inside and share what they see in their mind’s eye, and if possible, draw what God looks like to them. Along their journey, the filmmakers set The Box up on iconic street corners and diverse locations across America.

A remarkable collection of scholars, archeologists and religious leaders help examine the material and put it into a historical and relevant context. The surprises and revelations about our current interpretations of God come to light, as small glimpses inside the minds of others helps illuminate a much bigger picture."

1. What does God mean to you?

2. What does God look like, to you?

You'll see an interesting clip of Acharya at 2:05 through 2:45

www.freethoughtnation.com...

I heard that this film was to be released this spring.

reply to post by GoldenKnight


Sorry its just that, after one reads enough Jung and Campbell and others it becomes clear. Clear enough to see that a quest for succinctness risks oversimplifications and half-truths.

Originally posted by GoldenKnight
I can agree with your point about Dawkins, Lux. I was just deeply disappointed that he refused to make any effort to contact Acharya S or read her work to learn more about it - he simply did the hand-waving dismissal without looking into the matter. He really let me down when he did that.

Here's a very interesting thread comparing Sam Harris' work with that of Acharya's:

Acharya's Work Complements Sam Harris's Philosophy
www.freethoughtnation.com...

Acharya S actually has quite a bit to offer and these guys won't help her out at all and that really pisses me off.

I think that you will find that the world of the academic study of religion is full of very sceptical acadmics, as opposed to religious fanatics; every university with a "Religious Studies" department will have walls of books in their libraries with entirely sceptical and critical studies of Christianity. When I did my "Theological and Religious Studies" degree in London, two of the main lecturers in the department were openly Marxists and one was a radical feminist, and this is an entirely progressive sign in my opinion, that lecturers in the field of religious studies are often evangelically anti-religious and entirely despise organised religion.

Richard Dawkins "God Delusion" which I read recently is in my opinion probably the great modern classic on philosophy and psychology of religion; it is an utterly devastating critique of religion and of irrational belief. This modern tendency is not the mythic position which attempts to glean transcendental truths from texts; it is an total attack on transcendentalsm and the gods and metaphysical ramblings of the world's major religions.

The Biblical deity described by Dawkins as "arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully," is a sadistic demon who cannot be redeemed by the mythic position.

Acharya is certainly one of many scholars who is desconstructing this god, however I think that for most humanists, this god was killed off long ago and whether Mithras and Horus were born on Dec 25th or not, it is probably just something they have no picked up on, however it would only be an addition to their ammunition; there is already sufficient evidence to rubbish the myth of Jesus and the religion of Jesus.

The question of whether the universe is designed or not is a philosophical and scientific question; it is quite a separate issue from the matter of the ancient definitions of the gods, which I tend to consider to be just anthropomorphic (projections of human consciousness) projections of our relatively primitive and savage ancestors.

A rather friendly critcism of Acharya I would make is that the mythic position is not antagonistic and anti-Christian enough; it is almost as if a Christian might read Acharya and conclude; "my religion is based on ancient myths, but they are very good and useful myths" which is quite the opposite conclusion of the evangelical and almost militant anti-Christianity of the vast array of humanists, Nietzscheans, Neomarxists, philosophical Satanists, Luciferians, etc., who generally consider Christianity to be a malevolent and abhorrent memetic virus and a curse on humankind which must be eradicated as soon as possible, by all means necessary; similarly with Islam and Hinduism of course.

.... the mythicist position ... does not seek to discount or denigrate the long and exalted history of thought concerning religion and mythology, dating back many thousands of years, as manifested in the religious and spiritual practices of man beginning millennia ago and continuing since then.

In contrast the modern humanist anti-Christian movement "does" seek to denegrate religion and justifyably so. As Dawkins argues (I paraphrase his argument) in his "The God Delusion," many religions contain humanist ethics such as the "Golden Rule (do unto others...)" which is a general ethical maxim which can found in the texts of numerous philosophers and religionists, but one does not need to rely on a transcendental (up above) deity to construct such an ethical maxim; such ethical maxims have been derived from the "human mind" not from a deity. Part of the "problem" is that religions "do" contain some ethical truthisms, which even humanist philosophers would accept, but they are then combined with the laws of genocidal demonic war gods like YHVH and Allah. Ancient religions are simply of no value to humanist ethics, since humanist ethics are the product of human reason and intution, and are not derived from myths of transcendental deities.

Lux

The Antichrist (Extracts)
Friedrich Nietzsche

The Declaration of War against Christendom

"We should not deck out and embellish Christianity: it has waged a war to the death against this higher type of man, it has put all the deepest instincts of this type under its ban, it has developed its concept of evil, of the Evil One himself, out of these instincts--the strong man as the typical reprobate, the "outcast among men." Christianity has taken the part of all the weak, the low, the botched; it has made an ideal out of antagonism to all the self-preservative instincts of sound life; it has corrupted even the faculties of those natures that are intellectually most vigorous, by representing the highest intellectual values as sinful, as misleading, as full of temptation. The most lamentable example: the corruption of Pascal, who believed that his intellect had been destroyed by original sin, whereas it was actually destroyed by Christianity!--

It is necessary to say just whom we regard as our antagonists: theologians and all who have any theological blood in their veins--this is our whole philosophy. . . . One must have faced that menace at close hand, better still, one must have had experience of it directly and almost succumbed to it, to realize that it is not to be taken lightly. This poisoning goes a great deal further than most people think:

So long as the priest, that professional denier, calumniator and poisoner of life, is accepted as a higher variety of man, there can be no answer to the question, What is truth? Truth has already been stood on its head when the obvious attorney of mere emptiness is mistaken for its representative.
.
Upon this theological instinct I make war:

I find the tracks of it everywhere. Whoever has theological blood in his veins is shifty and dishonourable in all things. The pathetic thing that grows out of this condition is called faith: in other words, closing one's eyes upon one's self once for all, to avoid suffering the sight of incurable falsehood. People erect a concept of morality, of virtue, of holiness upon this false view of all things; they ground good conscience upon faulty vision; they argue that no other sort of vision has value any more, once they have made theirs sacrosanct with the names of "God," "salvation" and "eternity."

I unearth this theological instinct in all directions: it is the most widespread and the most subterranean form of falsehood to be found on earth. Whatever a theologian regards as true must be false: there you have almost a criterion of truth. His profound instinct of self-preservation stands against truth ever coming into honour in any way, or even getting stated.

Wherever the influence of theologians is felt there is a transvaluation of values, and the concepts "true" and "false" are forced to change places: what ever is most damaging to life is there called "true," and whatever exalts it, intensifies it, approves it, justifies it and makes it triumphant is there called "false."... When theologians, working through the "consciences" of princes (or of peoples--), stretch out their hands for power, there is never any doubt as to the fundamental issue: the will to make an end, the nihilistic will exerts that power...

..God becomes the formula for every slander upon the "here and now," and for every lie about the "beyond"! In him nothingness is deified, and the will to nothingness is made holy! . . .

Christianity also stands in opposition to all intellectual well-being,--sick reasoning is the only sort that it can use as Christian reasoning; it takes the side of everything that is idiotic; it pronounces a curse upon "intellect," upon the superbia of the healthy intellect. Since sickness is inherent in Christianity, it follows that the typically Christian state of "faith" must be a form of sickness too, .... "Faith" means the will to avoid knowing what is true. ...... The impulse to lie--it is by this that I recognize every foreordained theologian.--

..
..--With this I come to a conclusion and pronounce my judgment. I condemn Christianity; I bring against the Christian church the most terrible of all the accusations that an accuser has ever had in his mouth. It is, to me, the greatest of all imaginable corruptions; it seeks to work the ultimate corruption, the worst possible corruption. The Christian church has left nothing untouched by its depravity; it has turned every value into worthlessness, and every truth into a lie, and every integrity into baseness of soul. Let any one dare to speak to me of its "humanitarian" blessings! Its deepest necessities range it against any effort to abolish distress; it lives by distress; it creates distress to make itself immortal. . . . . . a will to lie at any price, ,,,,Parasitism as the only practice of the church; with its anaemic and "holy" ideals, sucking all the blood, all the love, all the hope out of life; the beyond as the will to deny all reality; the cross as the distinguishing mark of the most subterranean conspiracy ever heard of,--against health, beauty, well-being, intellect, kindness of soul--against life itself. . . .

This eternal accusation against Christianity I shall write upon all walls, wherever walls are to be found--I have letters that even the blind will be able to see. . . . I call Christianity the one great curse, the one great intrinsic depravity, the one great instinct of revenge, for which no means are venomous enough, or secret, subterranean and small enough,--I call it the one immortal blemish upon the human race. . . .

Student X,

How sure of that are you? What books by Acharya S have you actually read from cover to cover? None? How many theists are reading Jung and Campbell? How many theists are writing reviews saying those books changed their lives? In fact, how many Christians even know who Carl Jung and Joseph Campbell is?

Simply provide the succinct mythicist position by Carl Jung and/or Joseph Campbell or your argument remains an epic failure.

The first wheel was probably made out of wood or stone. Henry Ford created the first factory of mass production. Computers were originally the size of a house. You're argument is essentially claiming we shouldn't attempt to improve upon anything. I would be embarrassed to make that argument.

www.freethoughtnation.com...

From where I stand you're oblivious to the point. The reasons for having a clear succinct mythicist position are axiomatic. If you don't understand that then, you have a lot of studying to do.