>>512967165
the assertion that atheism lacks epistemic or metaphysical commitments is demonstrably false.
any worldview, including atheism, must account for the preconditions of knowledge, meaning and rationality itself.
if one denies God's existence, they implicitly affirm naturalistic ontology wherein human cognition arises from unguided processes.
but this raises the "evolutionary argument against naturalism."
if our cognitive faculties emerged via blind selection for survival rather than truth, we have no grounds to trust them, including our belief in atheism.
thus atheism does carry metaphysical baggage, it must either
1: bite the bullet and accept radical skepticism
2: posit an unjustified faith in the reliability of reason.

meanwhile, the sagan-esque taxonomy you posted merely lexicalizes belief-states without addressing their warrant. to claim atheism is "just a lack of belief" is like claiming skepticism is "just a lack of conviction," both stances collapse under their own epistemic weight when pressed to justify their conditions of possibility.