Posting this because I think it’s an interesting examination of the overlap (or lack thereof) between atheists and general skeptics. It’s worth remembering that the term ‘atheism’ only means a rejection of theistic beliefs; non-theistic beliefs that are nonetheless irrational and unsupported by evidence are not relevant to the term. And yet one can easily see why there is an overlap between these two communities and why many atheists scoff at other atheists who profess belief in things like astrology, ghosts, reincarnation, etc.
I’m definitely one of those who doesn’t believe in anything supernatural, but I’ve certainly met atheists who do. It’s worth remembering the two groups aren’t synonymous.
Before I even open the article: bad title. Without no context or restriction, “Atheists” conveys “Atheists in general; for all intents and purposes, all Atheists”. This sounds like bullshit from a distance (and it is). A better way to convey the findings would be to put “some”, “many”, “a few” etc. before “Atheists”, but plenty media sources give no fucks about being accurate or correct.
And did the writer really share a fucking print screen as source???
Plenty people in Brazil label themselves “Atheists” while being more accurately described as either Monotheists or Pan[en]theists. For example, people who say “I don’t believe in gods, I believe in one God”, or who’d rather not be associated with institutionalised religions; the later is specially relevant, I think, because they tend to gravitate towards new age and syncretic religions. So depending on the methodology, and how this data is being contrasted with people who pay taxes to other governments, data regarding Brazil may or may not be useful.
That’s roughly on the same level as saying “the study found that not all Jehovah’s Witnesses hate your Sunday morning sleep”. This sort of generalisation is expected to be false, at least for some members within the group; as such, the “not all” is not a piece of news, it’s rubbish.
And here the author bites his own generalisation fallacy.
While I understand your complaints and admit that the author of the article strays too far into a tone that discredits atheists than I’d personally like, that’s not the view I share and not the reason I posted it. Also, plenty of headlines adhere to the convention of “[x group] thinks [this]” without meaning all members of that group. Whether or not you think that’s a shitty editorial standard, it’s not unique to this article.
Understood within the context I’m trying to present it and to the audience I’m presenting it to, I felt this article was a worthwhile contribution to the forum. I’m sorry if you disagree.
I understand it - no assumption taken about your view; I was criticising the text itself.
Not only a shitty editorial [lack of] standard, but also breeding grounds for misinformation. The fact that it’s more common makes it actually worse, as it lowers the awareness of people to point it out and say “wait a minute, this is bullshit!” at those headlines.
There’s no reason to apologise for sharing a text, or for seeing some disagreement on anything. If I were to put words on your mouth (Reddit style), I’d be the one at fault; not you. And disagreements are to be expected, not to be taken as an offence.
Other points regarding the text (such as how lack of a certain belief doesn’t prevent people from being irrational) were already addressed by other comments, so I simply didn’t mention them.
Removed by mod