All three can be distinguished. Four different things, if you include critical thinking.

Conflating these different categories is easy but it's very often wrong.

Could you possibly find writers who don't base their entire articles on idiotic straw men, that don't even pass he lowest of intellectual hurdles? Anyone who's devoted even two brain cells to the subject would know that atheism is only one manifestation, one tiny subset, of skepticism, dealing with only a single aspect of the world, out of the huge number that skepticism deals with. And no individual is a perfect skeptic, which is why rational inquiry is a collective enterprise.

Very simple stuff, which no writer expecting to be taken seriously should be struggling with. So can we move past junior high school, please?

Stop the junior high school stuff! Excellent idea Scott!

In a Ven diagram there would be some overlap, but the two things are distinct.

Atheism and skepticism are not extreme views nor are they opposite, just different positions.

So how does Fallacy of the excluded middle apply?

Atheist lack a belief in god. Your citation implies that indicates a skeptical position, or some degree of intellectual formation. And I know theists who represent themselves as skeptics. We can agree there is little or no correlation between atheism and skepticism.

--imm

I think he is saying that atheism does not necessarily indicate a skeptical position, and when people assume it does they may be mistaken.

He seems to argue that each person should be looked at separately and no assumptions should be made that someone is one thing just because they are another thing.

His point is your point - there is little or no correlation.

So I still don't see how this is a false dichotomy. There are many more than two option. One can be either, or both, or neither.

... and then shooting it down. It poses an assumption relating atheists to skeptics. It's hypothesizing that an non-atheist must be a non-skeptic (strawman) and then refuting it.

--imm

pointing out why that is not true.

I don't think he makes any point about a non-atheist being a non-skeptic at all.

He is clarifying terms and stating that everyone should be assessed as the individual they are.

Why is that a problem?

I did not know that.

--imm

I'm not quite sure myself.

I just have the feeling that the author is discrediting atheists for something they take no credit for.

--imm

I have seen some people conflate these term, but not often. I more often see people conflate atheist and secularist, which I think is a bigger problem, since lots of theists are secularists.

Anyway, I note that some are offended by this, which says something.

--Gosh golly if people are offended by what I say, it must strike a little too close to home!--

You're better than that, aren't you, cbayer?

Who are skeptics, or skeptics who are atheists.

I feel it's the latter.

I'm not sure which group would be most likely to fit in the overlap.

I find it is more skeptics who are atheists. This is of course anecdotal.

and atheists who are skeptics? Are you assigning special meanings to the noun coming after the (second) 'are'?

they are the same. But as a group?
Of all atheists, how many are skeptics, and of all skeptics, how many are atheists?
As an example, if 20% of all atheists are skeptics, but 60% of all skeptics are atheists, than more skeptics are atheist than visa versa.

You change the denominator, so you're comparing 'overlap/total skeptics' with 'overlap/total atheists', and you get a percentage, rather than '3 million' or whatever.

I think it's very hard to define someone as 'a skeptic', without saying what they're skeptical about. Someone may be completely skeptical about life after death, spirits and so on, but not about UFOs, Bigfoot, government conspiracies and so on. Does someone have to be skeptic about all, or nearly all, of the possible categories, or of just one of them?

Since the total numbers are probably different.
I am thinking not of people skeptical of something, but people in groups like committee for Skeptical Inquiry, James Randi etc...

It's a head scratcher to me why so much attention is devoted to trying to define atheists; as if we all are stamped out of the same cookie press or need to be shoehorned into someone else's narrow concepts. Every time I gloss through one of these serial screeds, it confounds me why the OP doesn't ever believe all the actual atheists who respond by denying -- yet again -- the obvious flaws in his latest cut-and paste.

Why don't you just put the question to the readers here? Just ask if anyone would agree with this Christian blogger who contends that atheists are prone to "conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, and pseudohistory" and if we really believe space aliens cause miracles rather than his religious doctrine.

Speaking only for myself, I'd say this article is pure bunkum.

It is about how the term atheism has a narrow and simple definition and there should not be assumptions made about what else that person might be.

It argues for looking at each person as an individual.

There is no attempt here to shoehorn anybody. Quite the opposite.

Screed? I don't think you even read it. And, again, you have me completely wrong, in addition to having the author of this piece completely wrong.

It might be you who is doing the shoehorning here, trying to fit "the OP" into your predetermined definition of who I am.

Your profound misunderstanding of this is startling obvious when you make the statement he says that atheists are "prone to" any of those things. All he says is that there are some who do have these believes and there is data to back up his statement.

Speaking only for myself, I'd say your post is pure bunkum.

nonsense like demonic possession. perhaps it is personal.

If he were half as diligent in adding similar writings that tried to malign religious groups with imaginary schemes and dastardly aspirations I might give him props for being an equal opportunity critic of philosophies instead of just another anti-atheist crusader.

yeah, his point that atheism is not skepticism is fine. But his approach is one sided and the last paragraph seems to be making excuses for his embrace of creationism when he was younger.
And though atheism isn't synonymous with skepticism, many of us did come by it through critical thinking.

to get critics of religion to shut up by whatever means possible.

Skepticism is skepticism, atheism is atheism.

Atheism is however the outcome of skepticism properly applied to the topic at hand. It is unfortunate that people do not always consistently apply skeptical principles to all their beliefs...