Everyone is misunderstood by some other group. Since this is the Religion forum I'm referring to religion (and atheism) misunderstandings. If you have religious beliefs that not everyone understands this has probably resulted in misunderstanding from your point of view. Maybe you just want to mention the most common or annoying comments that you get. I'll start with regard to "atheism". It's annoying to have a label for something that I don't believe in rather than something I do believe in. There aren't labels for other things that I don't believe in. There isn't a label for all the other Gods that you don't believe in. It's annoying when people wonder how one could have morals without God or how life could have meaning without God. It's also annoying when they insist on defining atheism as one who is certain that God doesn't exist. It's just a pretext so that they can say "you can't prove that God doesn't exist". My definition is "a lack of a belief (in God) based on insufficient evidence" rather than a certainty. Regarding purpose of life and morals, it's annoying because most people have the same morals and purpose in their lives and it isn't religion even if they are religious. It may be related to their kids, job, or any number of other factors as far as purpose is concerned. Moral are derived from society and not the Bible. It's why we now treat women much better and why we don't have slaves (indentured or otherwise) and why we don't stone everyone today. What are the most common annoying comments or misunderstanding for your particular religion (and no I'm not equating atheism with a religion).
I'm theistic, but people who don't know my views might take that as assuming that I'm Christian, monotheistic, fundamentalist. or right-wing in some way. When in reality, I'm very much part of the religious left, and am polytheistic. I'm not a literalist, though that in no way decreases the importance of mythology in my religion.
Not a specific book, so much as a large body of myths. The Greeks wrote down their mythology, sure, but no one book ever held the same weight to them that the Torah does for the Jews. Greek mythology is a complex literary and oral tradition, and there were considerable regional variations. I don't think of the myths as being literal. And neither did the ancient Greeks and Romans, especially as time marched on through the Hellenistic and Roman periods. The mythological tradition was robust enough to support reinterpretations, and the myths themselves are very didactic. I certainly believe that the gods exist, but I don't think that the myths are a literal telling of their deeds; they offer hints at their personages, or have other social, educational, or aetiological purposes. And most other contemporary Pagans feel the same way.
I get accepting the literature as fables designed to present a message in story form. I don't get the leap from accepting the message in the form of a story to believing that supernatural gods were actually behind those beliefs. How would one come to such a conclusion? Just a feeling?
Misunderstanding is usually the fulfillment of pretension to one thing or another. It satisfies the ego. Or - its deliberate manner betrays its real objectives.
They're mostly separate, though related. While I took some inspiration from mythology, my belief in the gods comes more from personal experiences. The myths relate the gods to the culture that originally worshipped them, and help to explain some of the gods' personalities. Which may seem strange, since I am a modern-day worshipper, but my practices are reconstructionist. The culture that originally worshipped these deities is relevant to what I do.
I'm misunderstood by my father... he always thinks of atheists as "those who believe God does not exist". I have tried numerous times to correct him of this thinking, and each time he nods sagely and says "ah, yes, that makes sense," (what atheism means, not necessarily that the position itself makes sense). And the next time we discuss the matter he is back to his old understanding. In such discussions with him I don't like to label myself solely as agnostic, as that (to him) suggests that I am merely sitting on the fence. But I think it suits him to consider atheists as "believe in non-existence" as it gives him a position of "well, you can't prove it". He's not, you may have guessed, particularly into the philosophical side of things. My siblings at least understand, one being a Catholic, the other considering themself "spiritual" (no belief in a God, but belief in something). That's one of the reasons I actually quite enjoy this forum... I'm fascinated (as is cluelusshusbund and others) in why people believe, and love discussing the philosophical aspects of things. And my family are just not interested in questioning things. It is that misunderstanding in the "real world" by those I would like to discuss with that drives me to forums such as this. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Long may it last. (As long as my fascination with logic doesn't detract/annoy too much). Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I think laws that many countries have spell out what you can and can't do without relying upon a book like the bible. So that means those laws can be changed as the society can challenge them anytime they want to bring laws that are bad ones or ones that need changing because society wants them changed. The bible, or any other book, has strict commandments that a society must be bound to and those commandments do not change and cannot be altered for it is the word of god/gods. That isn't a prudent idea for society must change in order to have any progress and to bind anyone to a book that was written thousands of years ago just, to me, isn't correct. It shows the lack of ways to amend anything written within such books. One way they did change there books about the Christian religion was to write a new book and rename it. The new book changed their god/god's way of making morals, laws, commandments to a newer way of thinking. I guess they did not like the old god/god's for it was very bad and demanded sacrifices of family members and was also very mean. That's quite a leap of faith I would say and would think it was a way to get more people to like their new religion for the new god/god's were much nicer.
I have nout in common with anyone on anything. My beliefs are all range, so i never am pigeon holed. I have nout in common with males, and have never liked females, so there again i have nout in common with most males, and females have no clue that males do not like them, so even less in common with people. Its an endless circle. I just do not even bother. I know we are unique, as i am unique. If you have ever seen bicentenial man, where williams plays a robot. But i suspect really its symbolic of a person with severe autism, or aspergers. Total outsider, trying to find someone that he relates to. I think life for those with autism is similiar, but maybe some find some to relate too, while most do not. I have nout in common with anyone, but just accept it that way. I view myself as unique in that, so i assume you all must be unique to yourself, but obviously most find contact with others ok, and relate to others. At 39, i gave up long ago, trying to figure out where i belong, and i am just me.
