I can feel your anger

[Skepsis]

Yup. I'm a little curious as to why you didn't explain yourself, instead of making me guess, but whatevs.

Little curious as to why you didn't simply understand it, as I'm using the definition in a way not dissimilar from the way you are using them, besides how I defined why a set must inform its subsets,

Their action is motivated by the set of beliefs. If the set of beliefs were theistic, they would be motivated by theism; similarly, if the set of beliefs were atheistic, they would be motivated by atheism.

You now have to explain why everything in the world ins't motivated by a-unicornism. If a set of beliefs were a-unicornistic, they would be motivated by a-unicornism. Basically everything fall under a lack of any belief, and so your classifications are useless.

That's all a bunch of bullshit, frankly. The sets are given all of their meaning by the propositions included in them.

Cool, can I dismiss your objections by simply saying "That's all a bunch of bullshit"?
If you include atheism as a set despite the fact that it is a lack of belief, and you claim that sets are given meaning by the propositions included in them, then a-unicornism is a conglomerate of every single belief in existence besides the belief that unicorns exist and the subsets of that belief.

You are spouting a bunch of nonsense.