I can feel your anger

[CliveStaples]

Really and seriously? I can't believe you are seriously arguing the most cliched anti-atheist argument on the books- that atheism is a belief system. Most people go from that to "So you must have as much faith as us" (as if that should be an insult coming from the faithful), or they say, "So, anyways, not that that's established, take my burden of proof".

But you...

No, I don't think any of that. In fact, I've specifically contradicted the claim that atheism is a belief system.

You're an odd one. You simply argue to argue, don't you? I think it's silly to argue that atheism is a class as theism is. Atheism, as you freely confess, is the lack of belief. You say that, then you contradict yourself, saying that atheism includes all beliefs that don't fall under the theistic umbrella- which is obviously wrong. Atheism is a lack of belief, or hell, you might even call it the rejection of theistic propositions- but it certainly isn't a belief, and I would happily shoot myself in the foot if you can show me that it's a "belief system".

What utter garbage. Do you even think before you post?
No- Sorry. I don't mean to get too snippy.

See, I don't think that Atheism "includes" beliefs, really. That's just kind of shorthand to express the idea of a belief system implementing atheism. It's defined by the lack of a belief.

So it isn't that atheism is itself a belief, it's that there are lots of belief systems that are atheistic.

That's kind of a fine distinction to make, but I think it'll make more sense if you look at Theism as a comparative example.

Now, Theism is a class of belief systems. It includes things like Christianity, Zoroastrianism (so far as I can tell, anyway), Hinduism, and so on.

But you can also think of Theism as a belief itself; namely, the belief "At least one God exists." Equivalently, you could think of it as the intersection of every theistic belief system.

The corresponding property for Atheism as a 'belief itself' is...nothing. It's the empty set. So it doesn't take anything to 'believe' atheism, because you don't have to believe anything to be an atheist.

But I still think your argument is absolute trash.

That's too bad, I really like it. I think it incorporates interesting things from computer science--the idea of implementing a class, for instance--as well as basic logic and set theory. It might not be a very good model for how people actually think and talk about belief systems, though--especially judging by Taq's reaction.

I really don't get that guy, and why he hates me.

We're allergic to arguments that have been covered in detail thousands of times before, on the internet, in real life, and on these very forums. This argument might very well be the oldest and stalest in the "theists' shitty arguments" list.

...uh, really? People have talked about belief systems in terms of set theory in that much detail? I could understand it being incredibly common in, say, a philosophy of religion department, but I kinda doubt that you guys have gone over this particular formulation very much before.

---

It certainly didn't fucking work for you. I suggest you try avtually reading one instead.in

Where is my logic flawed? What's a better way to think about this? Why aren't you contributing instead of trolling?