Okay, Gadarene, I take it that possibly our entire discussion has involved terms with different meanings. I *made up* positive and negative atheism according to definitions I think I've made before (but I'm too lazy to look up). Your definitions are very different than what I have in mind. And I'm very strongly going to state that it isn't at all "redefining" a term if you happen to use the same term but make a point to state what this term means beforehand. Sorry for the confusion.
It's like this.
Two people both identify as atheist. One person creates a group that basically supports atheism "against the nonsense of theism," talks about reason and science as the best, and involves other atheists, where they all get together and talk about things (how bad theism is, how good it is to be an atheist so you're not deluded like theists, etc.). The other person doesn't even think about doing anything at all with his atheism; he responds to the other atheist by saying, "I just don't believe in any deities." Boom.
The first atheist is the positive atheist. He, explicitly or implicitly (by his behavior), identifies things with his atheism, such as valuing not being a theist, holding to an atheist culture (which invites other atheists with similar values), upholding reason and science, etc. The other atheist is a negative atheist. He just doesn't believe in any deities.
That to me summarizes the distinction more along values lines than philosophical ones. The very existence of any group or person who *prizes* his atheism is indicative, I think, of at least a seedling of positive atheism (remember, as I've defined it), given that you can't prize something without having holding to the existence of certain variables or identifiers that go along with it.
I´m not going to accuse you of overcomplicating a simple issue - but I´m actually not seeing what is remarkable or new about the trivial fact that different people who do a particular thing *not* are abstaining from doing it for different reasons, with different attitudes, with different degrees of being vocal about it, etc. etc.
"Vegetarians" are people who don´t eat meat.
Some don´t eat it because they don´t like the taste.
Some don´t eat it because they consider themselves animal lovers.
Some don´t eat it because they feel meat is unhealthy.
Some don´t eat it for religious and/or spiritual reasons.
Some don´t eat it because they find it too expensive.
Some don´t eat it because of environmental reasons, or because they believe that the production of meat is co-responsible for the hunger in the world.
Some think that animals have souls, some of these think that all souls are interconnected.
Some don´t eat it for a variety of combinations of these reasons.
Some, in addition, are even vegans.
Some are basically silent about not eating meat.
Some are very vocal.
Some are proselytizing.
Some are militant.
For some it´s just a personal decision, others condemn those who eat meat.
For some an entire ideology or worldview is connected with their vegetarianism.
So, exactly how does this variety pose a problem, and for whom?
Why would anyone feel justified in automatically assuming a particular reason or intensity or degree of attitude with someone who says "I´m a vegetarian"? The message is clear: "I don´t eat meat."
Everyone who e.g. responds: "But how come you wear leather shoes?", or "Then you should also be against abortion." has made unnecessary assumptions.
Apparently nobody feels the need to create categories like "positive" or negative vegetarianism". Nobody who has half a brain will point to the fact that Hitler was a vegetarian, too, and that therefore the term "vegetarian" needs to be qualified so not to be associated with National Socialism or genocide (although it may well be possible that there are neo-Nazis who are vegetarians because Hitler was). Etc. etc.
Where the heck is the problem? What is the fuzz all about?
When you here "vegetarian" you can be sure the person doesn´t eat meat. When you hear "atheist" you can be sure the person doesn´t believe in deities.
If you want to learn some more about their motives, their attitudes, the degree to which they associate it with other ideas etc. you can ask them. Until then, just pick the broadest available definition and you are on the safe side.
If you are determined to make assumption that´s a token that you aren´t really interested in them and their beliefs, anyway.
Plus: there is nothing new about it. It has always been that way, and it´s that way with all labels.
When someone tells me he is a theist, all it tells me that they believe in some sort of deity. The fact that the term doesn´t tell me whether they are e.g. militant fundamentalist Christian evangelicals, "lazy"/"folclorist" Hindus or people who just believe there needs to be some sort of unspecified first cause is no problem at all - unless I am determined to make unwarranted assumptions.
