Face it fr0d0, Eilonnwy is up fallacy lane with this article.
1. She asserts the 'privilege' of white men is responsible for Atheists being disproportionately white men, yet never even attempts to substantiate her claim other than some testimonials, something that she would laugh at if testimonials were the only thing raised as evidence for phenomenon x, this makes her a hypocrite.
2. She massively generalises, again displaying behaviour that she would condemn was it from a point of view she disagreed with. My favourite example being "I have viewed many statements by atheists on the topic of race and been taken aback at the obvious white privilege dripping from their words" in conclusion that this is why most atheists are white men. It's like saying "I've seen many Polynesian criminals therefore Polynesians are responsible for crime"
3. She never demonstrates a connection between this 'privilege' and the disproportionate white male atheism, she makes no attempt to account for other factors, such as the obvious being 1) White people generally have higher levels of education due to historical racism and it's ongoing effects on poverty 2)Black men are more likely to be atheists than black women, likely because of the fact that women in general are more emotional, which when combined with 1 coincides better with the statistics than "white male privilege" causing it.
4. She conflates atheism and civil rights and then whines when Atheist movements aren't blanket civil rights movements. Well what the fuck did you expect?
5. She holds the comedian Bill Maher responsible for part of this divide, regardless of the fact that he's done far more to bridge the gap than extend it, despite the fact that he can be an asshole sometimes.
1. She asserts the 'privilege' of white men is responsible for Atheists being disproportionately white men, yet never even attempts to substantiate her claim other than some testimonials, something that she would laugh at if testimonials were the only thing raised as evidence for phenomenon x, this makes her a hypocrite.
2. She massively generalises, again displaying behaviour that she would condemn was it from a point of view she disagreed with. My favourite example being "I have viewed many statements by atheists on the topic of race and been taken aback at the obvious white privilege dripping from their words" in conclusion that this is why most atheists are white men. It's like saying "I've seen many Polynesian criminals therefore Polynesians are responsible for crime"
3. She never demonstrates a connection between this 'privilege' and the disproportionate white male atheism, she makes no attempt to account for other factors, such as the obvious being 1) White people generally have higher levels of education due to historical racism and it's ongoing effects on poverty 2)Black men are more likely to be atheists than black women, likely because of the fact that women in general are more emotional, which when combined with 1 coincides better with the statistics than "white male privilege" causing it.
4. She conflates atheism and civil rights and then whines when Atheist movements aren't blanket civil rights movements. Well what the fuck did you expect?
5. She holds the comedian Bill Maher responsible for part of this divide, regardless of the fact that he's done far more to bridge the gap than extend it, despite the fact that he can be an asshole sometimes.
.
