[photon]

Originally Posted by Chill Cosby

Absolutely it is. In part.

Humans are molecules because they are made up of molecules? Cars are seat warmers because they are comprised of seat warmers (among other things)? No, and neither is a single belief (or lack of a belief) a belief system because they are made up of beliefs.

Originally Posted by Chill Cosby

Being an Atheist informs your view on politics, education, human rights, law, etc.

Believing I can't fly informs many of my views, that doesn't make it a belief system.

Originally Posted by Chill Cosby

As an Atheist, you adhere to other beliefs almost automatically. Fundamentalism is a belief system, but Fundamentalism is defined as the belief that the literal interpretation of the Bible is necessary to Christianity.

Is Fundamentalism not a belief system because it is also a belief (despite being one that other beliefs fall under)?

Fundamentalism isn't defined as a belief though as Textcritic points out. Even the dictionary definitions describe a set of beliefs, not a single belief. So no.

And even if your definition was correct, it's still not a belief system because belief in Biblical inerrancy itself isn't a belief system because it isn't a set of mutually supporting beliefs, it's a single belief. So you'd still be wrong because you'd be conflating fundamentalism as your definition as a single belief and fundamentalists describing a group of people and their common set of mutually supportive beliefs.

Originally Posted by Chill Cosby

So does a lack of belief inform other beliefs? Or are we in agreement that a "lack of belief" in god is the same in this scenario (Atheism) as a "belief" in god?

Beliefs inform other beliefs, lack of beliefs inform other beliefs. I lack the belief that there's gold in the river that my friends want to go pan, which will inform my belief about the venture being worth the time and expense. It could inform it differently than an active belief that there is gold, or an active belief that there is not gold.

Originally Posted by Chill Cosby

People certainly do follow Atheism. There are organisations that promote community and the teaching of Atheism.

http://www.atheistalliance.org/about-aai
http://www.atheists.org

Textcritic's question is a good one, I think you're doing the same backwards reasoning as the links you've posted. You even intentionally incorrectly capitalize atheism which shows think the word means something different than what it's defined as.

Originally Posted by Chill Cosby

Are there are organisations dedicated the the promotion and education, the "mission" as it were of plain old Theism? Usually such things are dedicated to actual organisations, organisations formed on a system of beliefs.

The relative need or desire of people to organize in response to perceived needs in society at the time and the nature of those organizations doesn't change the meaning of the term belief system.

And yes there are organizations dedicated to plain old theism, there are tons of interfaith organizations. And just like an atheist organization they often do or promote things that go beyond what the simple belief or lack of belief in god would require. Interfaith organizations promoting peace or equality or freedom aren't doing so because theism demands those beliefs, just like an atheist organization promoting peace or equality or freedom aren't doing so because atheism demands those beliefs.

Originally Posted by Chill Cosby

Please cite the contradiction, perhaps you mean I lack clarity.

I already did cite it.

Originally Posted by Chill Cosby

I believe that most Atheists claim they would change their mind, but that it is also impossible to do so, because the evidence that would actually be required is evidence they don't believe exists. Same goes with all.

"I believe most people who don't believe in faeries claim they would change their mind, but that is also impossible to do because the evidence that would actually be required is evidence they don't believe exists."

Well of course, believing the evidence doesn't exist is WHY they lack the belief in faeries. Requiring evidence that doesn't yet exist (or exists but isn't yet known to the person) is usually a requirement to believe something for good reason... Suggesting that requiring yet unknown evidence to support a new belief is a problem is illogical.

Originally Posted by Chill Cosby

Let me ask you this:
What evidence did you present to your religious friends? To Atheists, God is a story. A fantastical creation that doesn't exist. So what evidence, equally as magical to that of a religious person, did you present?

I don't have to present any evidence, the burden of proof is on the one making the claim (there is a god). That you think I should provide evidence is a fallacy.

Originally Posted by Chill Cosby

They use it to justify the idea that their belief is more reasonable than that of any theist.

Not any theist, only those theists that dogmatically adhere to their beliefs. A belief that is arrived at by evaluating all known information and can change if information changes IS more reasonable than a belief that cannot change despite any information.