You can’t what? Tell the difference between journalism and propaganda? Breitbart isn’t news. They don’t conform to any standard of journalistic integrity or ethics and have extreme bias. There’s a lot more I would like to say, but I’m sure it would be deemed political (though IMO stating facts isn’t political). All I’ll say is that the coverage you mentioned that won the Pulitzer was not fake news.
I think this is really flawed thinking, and that its actually the opposite that is true (theist vs atheist. First, the idea that morality is only derived from theism is just patently wrong. Second, most of the monotheistic religions on the planet, which cover the vast majority of religious people, are human-centric, meaning that the theology puts humans at the center of the universe and that the natural world exists for human to exploit. When you don’t believe that this plain of existence is a weigh station on the way to some other, more true spiritual dimension, you have more of a vested interest in observing a sustainable relationship with the natural world, and I think, a closer and more holistic relationship with it.
While I agree with you that evolution has no goal or meaning, that human morality is ultimately irrelevant, and that whatever species go extinct is technically ‘natural’, the whole point of trying to stop climate change and to preserve the natural world is that it ultimately serves out own best interests, it’s not altruistic, it’s self-serving. I don’t think humans are going to extinct from climate change, but it is going to cause massive, widespread, never before seen levels of human suffering.
It’s the same story in that they’re talking about the same study, but the conclusions they draw from it are conjecture and they completely misrepresent the report. It’s not an objective look at the report, the headline alone tells you that. It cherry picks parts of the report to push a very blatant agenda. To say that it’s the same article that other outlets ran about the report is dishonest.
