Originally posted by BigDoggProblem
Of course it's relevant if language is helpful. We use it to try and communicate. We're not just typing and speaking to pass the time.
Then again, maybe I should speak only for myself. 😞
The word "atheist" is a label that points to the set of all people who are not theists.
The word "theist" is a label that points to the set of all people who believe in the
existence of a god or gods.
As there are Buddhists who lack a belief in the existence of gods, then they are
included in the set of all people who do not believe in gods and are thus atheists.
This is not generally speaking a label that is helpful when talking about Buddhists,
and if a Buddhist were ever to ask me I would advise that they introduce themselves
as a Buddhist and not an atheist to avoid confusion if nothing else.
However the fact that the label is not generally helpful in these instances doesn't mean
it's not applicable or accurate. The Buddhist who lacks belief in gods is still an atheist.
The label would become almost completely pointless in an unlikely but hopefully possible
future in which everyone [or at least nearly everyone] stops believing in gods.
However it would still have the same meaning, and it would be just as accurate to
describe those people as atheists. It would just be as useful as calling them human.
The fact that it's not generally helpful [although I contend it sometimes is] to correctly
identify babies as being atheists, doesn't mean we should change the definition or calve
out some weird special pleading caveat for babies to avoid calling them atheists.