Passer, there are two things you can do, that will prove useful here.
First,
read this post on the nature of mythology, and why it's singularly unreliable as a source of substantive knowledge (except, of course, substantive knowledge about how people fabricate mythologies).
Second, learn this definition of atheism that I proposed here some time ago in the interests of rigour, viz:
Atheism is
the refusal to treat uncritically as fact, unsupported supernaturalist assertions.
While it's tempting to say "that is
it" with regard to the above definition, in order to kill at source the usual duplicitous apologetics about atheism all too frequently seen arising from supernaturalists, that definition immediately invites a range of important corollaries, and in addition arises from a fundamental rule of proper discourse. That rule being, quite simply, that any assertion presented
possesses the status "truth value unknown" when first presented, and retains that status until subject to test. Recognition of that rule, and the proper application thereof to supernaturalist assertions, is what leads inexorably to the definition of atheism I provided above. The corollaries arising therefrom, include the implied need to exert diligent effort determining if an assertion is testable even in principle, and if so, what test(s) can be devised to apply thereto.
Which immediately points to a major problem with mythological assertions, namely, that many of them are either untestable in principle, via accident or design. As a corollary of this state of affairs, those assertions will forever possess the status "truth value unknown", until some genius devises an actual test and applies it. Consequently, those assertions may freely be discarded, on the basis that assertions with an unknown truth-value cannot of themselves contribute meaningfully to substantive knowledge. The only purpose they serve, whilst possessing that status, is to provide a motivation to remedy the knowledge deficit with respect to their actual truth value, and those seeking to do so should be mindful of the issues that have arisen along the way, with respect to many assertions that
were successfully assigned a truth-value. In short, the business of testing assertions to determine their truth-value, is a hugely non-trivial enterprise when conducted properly.
Another problem with some mythological assertions, is that they have already been demonstrated to be false. The various bizarre cosmologies asserted to have taken place in our past mythologies, have all been demonstrated to be spectacularly wrong. Instead, the universe has been found, via diligent scientific investigation, to be far older, far grander in scale, and replete with far more exotic entities and phenomena, than any of our mythologies asserted. Indeed, this is one of the reasons I treat mythology as incompetent with respect to the matter of imparting proper knowledge - the authors thereof were apparently incapable of even
fantasising about vast classes of entities and phenomena that have since been alighted upon by science, and placed within precise, usefully predictive quantitative frameworks of genuine knowledge by the scientific endeavour. In the case of the Bible, the authors did not even know of the existence of the continental land mass now inhabited by so many of that mythology's followers, a disturbing fraction of whom cling to that mythology's assertions in a manner that ranges from the infantile to the clinically psychotic.
In short, mythologies were our attempt, as a species, to provide an explanation for our surroundings, in an era when we didn't know any better. We do know better now, and it's time to relegate mythologies to their proper place.
by 
