Wouldn't suspending disbelief and rejecting disbelief functionally amount to the same thing?Myth is a form of fiction, and so does requires a degree of the 'suspension of disbelief'. Some people take this to an absurd extreme by completely rejecting their disbelief.
Are they? Perhaps some do. But I think that many get so caught up in the idea of trying to factualize their mythologies, that they lose sight of the points of the stories that I agree with you are the important parts of those stories.Nevertheless, they are still capable of recognizing and grasping that a myth is intended to convey an ideal through the intellectual mechanisms of symbolism, allegory, and metaphor.
What about those that view their cultural myths as actual, historical and factual? You seem to be giving them a pass while taking your attack to the usual group that vexes you personally.Meanwhile, those who argue with them based on the lack of accurate factuality are just ignoring the fact that myths do not adhere to factuality because they are symbolic in their essential nature and purpose, and are intended to convey ideals, not facts.
A literalist would literally believe the story is a fact regardless of the symbolism and lessons conveyed within.So of the two groups, at least the literalists are capable of recognizing the actual purpose of mythical stories whereas their antagonists just completely ignore this.
From all I have seen, those that reject a myth as a literal event are doing just that and not rejecting any particular symbolic meaning or that no such meanings within those stories are seen to exist for them.
I follow the Bible, recognizing the symbolism and lessons therein, but I don't accept that the creation account and the global flood in Genesis are an historical and scientific account of actual events. Further, I'm not aware that those that do accept them as literal events have greater insight into those lessons simply for believing they describe real events. Sometimes, it seems they do not. As if all the struggle to force the facts to fit and make them real events deprives them of the value of the lessons they contain.
You seem to like to paint people into overly-generalized corners with your big brush. I think this misrepresents them and misses crucial details, similarities and differences.