Do you believe in Thrackerwags? No? Then you’re athrackerwagist.
It doesn’t matter if you haven’t heard of Thrackerwags, you don’t currently believe they exist.
You reject the dictionary definition. That’s not an answer.
Actually rejecting the existence of “most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in” is not a universal stance. Many polytheist or animist groups wouldn’t agree, and also man Hindus and Buddhists and others. As for Abrahamic religions, there is considerable variation in the approach to the question of Monotheism. The conception of God that holds sway in large spans of Christian, Jewish, and Islamic theology is qualitatively different than the conception ancient greeks had of Zeus. Holding to, say, an Avicennan model of God wouldn’t necessarily lead to a rejection of the existence of Zeus.
I repeat. Dawkins doesn’t matter much to me either way. Why are YOU going on about him?
I heard of it once you told me. Before I read your post, I would never have thought to call myself an athrackerwagist. In what sense, then, would it be meaningful for third parties to have described me that way?
I don’t necessarily accept your statement about B, but it’s irrelevant, since Richard Dawkins and I, and most atheists I’ve come across fall into category A anyway.
It depends, are stamp collectors trying to subvert the teaching of science, or forcing people to have unwanted pregnancies, or trying to ban birth control, or demanding that Stamp Collectivist art adorn public spaces, or cutting the flesh off of baby dicks and sucking the blood off with their mouths, or using their Stamp Collectivist clout to cover up fucking children, or demanding Stamp Collectivist chants be said before congress, or having pro-stamp collecting sayings put on our money, or trying to eliminate sex education, or trying to ban Harry Potter, or making school children say a ritual chant to Stamp Collectivism before school?
No? Then I guess it isn’t fucking the same thing huh?
You asked for a cite, I gave you a cite. Do try to keep up.
Because you made an ignorant, unfounded assertion and haven’t retracted it?
If the definition is someone who doesn’t believe in X, I’d say it was meaningful.
It doesn’t take an affirmative rejection to not believe something.
It doesn’t affect my point. Questioning whether there is something more is not a religious belief either.
I think Pinker would say that humans have an innate instinct to find patterns, even if they don’t exist, and to want to find causes as well. In the absence of various scientific and philosophical explanations for things, perhaps they would ascribe those causes to supernatural powers. For the last few hundred years, that has been unnecessary.
He would also say that humans have an innate instinct for language, but language is also not a religious belief.
Anyway, I think this is a hijack and it is not germane to my point anyway.
A few are, the vast majority are not.
Exactly. It’s a ridiculous analogy.
Goddamn. Or gawddamm. Hell, go with both.
I suppose you could say that pre-1492 Europeans didn’t believe in potatoes, or that their New World counterparts didn’t believe in unicorns (I am assuming, since they didn’t even have horses). I just don’t see how it’s useful or meaningful to do so. I wouldn’t describe Charlemagne as someone who didn’t believe in potatoes, and he wouldn’t have ever described himself that way either.
This kind of reminds me of the argument about whether ancient Egyptians were “Black.”
I’d never go that far. I just don’t have any belief in any gods. That is all.
As soon as you start talking about rejection people start accusing you of holding fundamentalist religious beliefs 
The lazy, moderate worshipers enable the insane ones, by voting for creeps with “good Christian values.”
It’s your analogy. You said Dawkins was roiling against stamp collectors, and that because of his passion that counts as a religion.
I was saying, that attacking stamp collectors would be a laudable thing, if stamp collectors were doing the things that religious people are doing. Which undercuts your assertion that it’s a delusional hatred based faith, it’s just a reaction to the various evils that religion, or in your analogy stamp collecting causes every day.
Remember, you switched which side stamp collecting was on, it was originally used to say that not collecting stamps was a hobby, if atheism was a religion. You changed it to say, that attacking stamp collectors for perceived evils is a religion.
Questioning is a meaning-making process, right. So I’d say it’s a religious process, but not a belief in and of itself. I don’t really take theism and religion as being synonyms.
Atheism isn’t particularly meaningful. It’s just not believing in a religion.
You cite things that a few extremists do, and claim that this represents the whole of religion.
Didn’t say that. But there are a few hateful and delusional atheists. Most aren’t. The majority of atheists are perfectly reasonable people.
I switched nothing. I have consistently asserted that the stamp collector is an invalid analogy. That has not changed.
Its use as an identification, which is what I have been explicitly referring to over this thread, is extremely meaningful to huge numbers of people. People suffer and die for identifying this way. People have suffered and died for not identifying this way.
Just because Charlemagne would probably have reacted the same way to “Do you believe in potatoes?” that you imagined I reacted to “Do you believe in Thracklewags?” does not mean that is not fundamentally flawed and intellectually vacuous to describe him as someone who didn’t believe in potatoes.