You made some good points. however, I really can't think of a religion that does not use faith (belief without evidence) or as you noted "fiction". Could you give me an example of a religion that does not use (faith)?

When I refer to “absolutes” I am referring to the beliefs or disbeliefs in a God or Gods not the every Day explainables.

Your definition of an atheist differs from my understanding of it. I am under the assumption that Atheist KNOW there isn’t a God.

@Darrellin559 that would be a gnostic atheist. They are few in numbers.

@Darrellin55 Your understanding of atheist is wrong. That definition is promoted by the church and faithful in an attempt to shift the burden of proof form their positive god claim to the person that does not accept their positive god claim. In a courtroom the defendant is innocent until proven guilty. The prosecutor must demonstrate the defendant committed the crime. It is not the responsibility of the defendant to demonstrate he did not commit the crime. The theist has the burden of proof "There is a god." The atheist simply does accept the positive claim. It really is that simple.

No thank you. I’m going to stay right here and attempt to have a serious open minded discussion. If you find this post “uninteresting” don’t comment on it.

I disagree. For the most part I have found that people of a religious faith and atheist like do not find their positions relative at all. They have been, again for the most part, absolutely positive of their truths.

@TheMiddleWay
Fundamentalist is one of those words that almost has too many meanings to be useful but I'm just using it mostly interchangeably with literalist. By that I mean someone who takes the concept of god literally instead of metaphorically. There are so many richer ways of conceiving of god than a bearded man in the sky.

All I'm saying is that all three descriptors are referring only to that literal man in the sky, and I don't feel any responsibility to take up an identity relative to that. If someone comes up with another imaginary force, say "Gazornumplatz" do I then have to declare my agnosticism to that too, and so on? No, why should I ? People can imagine whatever they want. I don't have to declare a position relative to their imaginings. All positions relative to fundamentalist imaginings are, in some sense, fundamentalist positions, because they are addressing a fundamentalist-only proposition.

No one, that I am aware of, denies the existence, or even the usefulness, of metaphor. It isn't even an issue. If your position is not based on a fundamentalist interpretation of a deity, are you saying you don't know if a metaphorical god exists?

I appreciate NOM to an extent, but really, there is no reason to think science can't or shouldn't study subjective experience. We've done it for decades (or more). Psychology does that as its main focus. Neurophysiology has its toe in that door too, and so on. There is no place that science shouldn't be allowed to go.

@TheMiddleWay
The extent to which I agree with NOM is this. Religion is, or at least should be, about the administering of training aimed at helping people master their monkey-mind, so to speak. That is, the tendency of the mind to jump about and lead us on a merry chase to nowhere. Meditation, for example, claims to do this, and most religions claim to bring peace, happiness, liberation, etc. In other words, psychological housekeeping.

Science doesn't see its responsibilities as including ministerial duties, but just figuring out what is in the objective sense. The administering of advice to the public every week is for others to do.

That's fine, and probably as it should be. And if the religious mistake helpful metaphor for objective reality, they are just mistaken.

But.

That, in my mind, does not mean that what goes on in the church should be off limits to science's critical eye. The church should in fact, if it hopes to survive, submit itself willingly to science's investigations, indeed it should solicit them. The Dalai Lama is leading the way in this attitude, and other religious leaders should follow unless they would prefer extinction over humility.

@TheMiddleWay
My use of the word fundamentalist here ( I should probably just say literalist) doesn't include an assessment of how firmly the person believes their claim, or really even whether they are making it without sufficient evidence. It just speaks to whether they are envisioning god as a literal person or as a metaphor for all things more powerful than themselves, for example.

Any position I could take on a literalist claim could be said to be a literalist position. This doesn't mean I don't understand how you are using the word agnostic. Your description of agnostic is undeniable, and plenty useful. I'm just saying it isn't the only useful angle from which to view the issue.

When I give my opinion I am just saying how it seems to me at the moment. I don't mean to be claiming that I know it to be this way for certain. In that sense I am agnostic about everything. I just don't feel any obligation to take up an identity based on a claim for which I am unaware of any supporting evidence. If others want to describe me this way or that, it's fine, but I feel no need to label myself according to their assumptions.

I guess it's a framing issue. It's just a game somebody else expects me to play, and my submission to that expectation fosters an assumption that it's a game everyone must play. I'm protesting by pointing out that it's a fundamentalist game, and that isn't the only game in town.

-----"That is, the tendency of the mind to jump about and lead us on a merry chase to nowhere."
How is this not you making the fundamental (as you use it) claim that religion leads to nowhere? -----

I wasn't saying religion leads to nowhere. I was saying an undisciplined mind can lead its owner in useless and destructive circles (nowhere). It's religion's job, in my opinion, to train people how to be more disciplined in their mental habits.

My answers are out of order of your asking but... apologies.

I can't call myself an atheist or agnostic because I consider myself to be deeply religious, and god to be undeniable. I think literalists have stolen our language and I am refusing to acknowledge their ownership of it. God is the word I use for the entirety of reality. It is simply axiomatic; no belief is required. I can think of no rational justification for waiting for further evidence that existence exists. Exactly what its nature is we may never know, but we, I think, may safely assume that we are having the experience of it we are having, even if that might be all there is of it.

My religion is my daily practice of learning how to discern fact from fiction, and how to maintain a healthy psychology, and a compassionate attitude toward my fellow living beings. This is what's sacred to me and I am not willing to let either literalism or scientism pollute or corrupt the cultural heritage (religious metaphors, etc. ) that authentic realism should inherit. (and i am not a solipsist, btw )

I'm not saying that your, or others', use of words like agnosticism are an incorrect usage. I'm just saying I don't choose to use them that way, and sharing my reasons why.

Unsure........I guess that’s something

.

I don’t even know what your reply means. Elaborate please

That evolution hasn't gotten humanity past the current god concept.
Like the hundreds before this one.
Believers and nonbelievers are still bantering the possible existence of fiction as if it were real.
Eventually it will pass into the realm of myth.