Hmm. I think you misunderstand what I'm trying to say. I agree that both positions are atheist and I'm not trying to imply that "all the conceptual consequences of one type of atheism can sweep up and obliterate the conceptual consequences of the other", as you put it.
The word 'atheist' indicates a lack of belief in deities. That is all the word, by itself, indicates. Which sort of atheist (gnostic, agnostic, hard, soft, what have you) is not implied by the word itself. For example, if someone says, "I am an atheist", all we know about that person is that he or she lacks belief in deities, because that's all the word actually means. It will take more information, usually in the form of qualifiers, to determine if the person considers him or herself gnostic or agnostic, etc.
See what I mean? You can't assume anything about a person's views from that single word beyond it's most basic meaning.
The word 'atheist' indicates a lack of belief in deities. That is all the word, by itself, indicates. Which sort of atheist (gnostic, agnostic, hard, soft, what have you) is not implied by the word itself. For example, if someone says, "I am an atheist", all we know about that person is that he or she lacks belief in deities, because that's all the word actually means. It will take more information, usually in the form of qualifiers, to determine if the person considers him or herself gnostic or agnostic, etc.
See what I mean? You can't assume anything about a person's views from that single word beyond it's most basic meaning.
