(February 28, 2019 at 5:21 am)Gae Bolga Wrote: I'm not debating that at all, why would I? I note that if something can possess a state of belief in gods, and that something does not - then the term atheist accurately refers to it. I don;t know whether or not dogs can, but if so, then it would fit. I don't know that bunions can, but if so, it would fit. I don't know that google can, but if so, it would fit. On and on.
There are a lot of things I'm not, but I don't identify myself by them or join forums about them. Clearly, there's something unique about atheism in this regard-- clearly, religious beliefs, traditions, and cultural influence are sufficient that the "-ist" must really refer to more than a lack.
