Are cats atheists?

[Reforged]

I really wish I'd been the first to see the OP. I would of simply posted:
"... Yes Jeff, cats are atheists. Now you know the truth."
and begged a mod to lock the thread.

My reasons are three fold:
1. Some theists would be frustrated at being unable to reply to such blatant sarcasm and justify why its entirely plausible cats may be atheists.
2. Some atheists would be frustrated they couldn't describe on just how many levels that doesn't make sense.
3. Knowing Jeff, theres always the odd chance he'll take it seriously and tell his friends. This alone makes it hands down the best reason out of the three.

Not particularly sure why sellied gave kudos to this. I mean when he read it did he go "Cats are atheists huh? Sounds legit." and click kudos? I just can't picture anyone doing that.
Godschild didn't give kudos to this for fuck sake... think about that for a moment. If Godschild doesn't give kudos to a theist post thats not a good sign. If someone who has made as many insane claims as him and given kudos to equally insane claims looked at this and went "... ok then." and moved on then that should be a warning light the size of the fucking empire state building.

[CliveStaples]

Let's see, we've got ad hominem, and...well, that's about it. Do you have any actual logical arguments to make? Or are you just not that interested in rational debate?

Clive,

Where exactly was the ad hominem attack? Italicising 'ad hominem' doesn't necessarily make it true.

I was accused of being disingenuous. Since my argument made no claims about my ingenuousness, the accusation is irrelevant to my argument. It is an attack against my character, rather than a response to my argument. That's ad hominem.

Also, if you have questions about the use of italics, this is a helpful source:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italic_type#Usage

What exactly was your point? You swooped in late to this discussion and have said nothing, so who are you to challenge someone to a 'rational' debate? Do you have something rational to debate?

My point was to propose a definition of atheism that preserved our notion of "atheist" as it applies to humans--that is, people who would typically be considered atheist would indeed be considered atheist under my definition--but which did not result in things like rocks and cats fitting under the definition of 'atheism'.

It seems like a perfectly rational point to discuss; whether my definition meets the criteria above is simply a matter of logic (as well as a set of shared assumptions about what constitutes reality, but I'll just stipulate now that I'll accept your assumptions for the sake of argument). If there does not exist a definition of 'atheist' that meets the criteria above, then every definition that describes people like Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens as 'atheist' must likewise describe cats and rocks as 'atheist'.

---

The suffix -ist denotes a personal noun. Stop playing word games. How you just defined atheism is the same as saying lack of belief.

Let's apply set theory. Let's define a set for every individual. Each element of this set is something the individual believes with respect to god/gods.

If I were to say I am an atheist, atheist meaning lack of belief in god or gods, it would mean my set is the empty set. Now, if I were to say what you said, and say "my belief system does not include the proposition that any god/gods exist" my set would still be empty. It's a different way of saying the same exact thing.

That is the point that defines atheism, the set containing an atheist's accepted claims with respect to god/gods is empty. It doesn't say anything about what belongs to an atheist's "disbelief set." That is, the set containing what an individual believes to be false.

Strong atheists (those who do make a positive claim (that no god exists)) would have a "disbelief set" = U. That is all possible claims about god/gods are false.

However, for the purposes of this discussion, the definition of an atheist is someone who lacks belief in any god/gods, or their set of beliefs with respect to god/gods = ∅

Here's why I said it the way I did:

What is the set of things that a rock (or a cat) believes about anything? Call this set E. Rocks can't have beliefs; therefore, E = ∅. Call the set of beliefs rocks (or cats) have about god(s) G. Since G ⊆ E, G ⊆ ∅ and hence G = ∅. Thus, by your definition, rocks (and cats) are atheist.

But under my definition, for anything to be considered 'atheist', it must have a belief system ("belief system" according to my definition). And, under my definition, rocks and cats can't form beliefs and thus cannot have belief systems. Thus they cannot be considered 'atheist'.

[Napoléon]

@ OP

I feel obliged to tell you that the cat in my avatar says yes.