If atheists aren't pagans, then the word has no meaning.
Sola Scriptura didn't lead the woman anywhere. "Putting words" into the mouth of the convert (the addition to the title) is an ugly passive aggressive tactic.
No one claimed it did. That is an ugly "straw man."
There is nothing wrong with addind the colloquial term to the conclusions of a new believer when those conclusions are identical. Would you get upset if "communion" was added to her tale of receiving the body and blood?
Trying to make it into a requirement for all is crossing a line that shouldn't be crossed.
According to whom, and why not?
From New Advent - Paganism, in the broadest sense includes all religions other than the true one revealed by God, and, in a narrower sense, all except Christianity, Judaism, and Mohammedanism. The term is also used as the equivalent of Polytheism.
Atheism (a privative, and theos, God, i.e. without God).
Atheism is that system of thought which is formally opposed to theism. Since its first coming into use the term atheism has been very vaguely employed, generally as an epithet of accusation against any system that called in question the popular gods of the day.
No one claimed it did. That is an ugly "straw man."
What does the part of the title added in brackets mean if it doesn't mean what it says?
There is nothing wrong with addind the colloquial term to the conclusions of a new believer when those conclusions are identical.
If the title had said something along the line of, "Disillusionment with Sola Scriptura led", it would have been supported by the article. Sola Scriptura didn't lead her anywhere. Her inability to connect with it did.
Would you get upset if "communion" was added to her tale of receiving the body and blood?
Depends on the way it was added.
According to whom, and why not?
You're quite free to do it & when you do, like every other kind of insult you dish out to others, it may generate a certain amount of backlash.