539
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Talk:Atheism and obesity (view source)
Revision as of 16:23, September 16, 2011
, 16:23, September 16, 2011→it must be a joke
Those are some very interesting poll findings! I have not seen those reported or discussed ANYWHERE in the media, thanks for getting them out there. Hopefully many people will now realize the dangers of choosing an atheistic lifestyle. PS I really enjoy the satires based on these findings. There very funny but also deliver a very serious message.
What's with this article? I'm an atheist, I'm 5' 9", 160 pounds, I bike to school almost every day, I eat healthy food, I hike, I work out from time to time and I know at least a couple of other atheist (I don't know many people all together) who have similar life styles. What gives? [[User:JamesTimmons|JamesTimmons]] 23:04, 1 January 2011 (EST)
:::James, are you familiar with the concept of "sample size"? Assuming "a couple" means two, as it does in proper American English, you know three people who are supposedly atheists. '''Thousands''' identify as atheists. Is three out of thousands really a sample size worthy of any consideration? (Especially coming from an online anonymous source of school-going age) ???--ADW
I'm not changing the article here, so I don't need any outside sources for anything I've said here, I'm just stating an observation. [[User:JamesTimmons|JamesTimmons]] 23:11, 1 January 2011 (EST)
::::You are '''proposing''' a major change to this article and challenging basic scientific findings. Where are your sources?--[[User:AnthonyDW|AnthonyDW]] 11:05, 2 January 2011 (EST)
:::::I would also like to point out that I live in a predominately atheist area and very few people I know are overweight. I don't doubt that atheism is a worse lifestyle choice - I just don't see that it has any correlation to obesity. Furthermore, I don't think ad hominem attacks on a few overweight famous atheists is going to convince anyone, and it also seems horribly unprofessional. [[User:RkWilko|RkWilko]] 23:08, 2 January 2011 (EST)
::::::There sure are a lot of atheists who are thin skinned about the subject of fat atheists. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 17:05, 3 January 2011 (EST)
:::::::::RkWilko, Gallup's study takes into account geographic to create a more [[ceteris paribus]] study in terms of what they studied. Do you have a ceteris paribus like study concerning atheism and obesity? Also, did you see the pictures of the [[American Atheists]] board of directors? What are your thoughts about how fat or thin they are generally speaking? [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 14:15, 8 January 2011 (EST)
This section: "While all atheists are non-religious..." is provided without citation. It's pretty obvious why it has no citation. It's false. There are plenty of atheist Buddhists and Humanists, for example.
Furthermore, providing a few examples of overweight atheists does nothing to prove the article's truth. That's just bad inductive reasoning. If I were to show a few skinny Hindus, would that prove that most Hindus are thin? Of course not.
Given Conservapedia's dedication to providing information that is as accurate as possible, I'm sure that someone in control of this article will make the necessary corrections. Thanks in advance. --[[User:Tylero|Tylero]] 16:54, 6 January 2011 (EST)
::::Fixed. I wrote: While many [[Western World|Western]] atheists are non-religious, not all non-religious people are atheists. I did this to avoid the contentious debate on whether Western atheism is a religion. I believe it can be easily argued that Western atheism is a religion and that is probably going to be incorporated in the atheism article at a future date. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 22:48, 7 January 2011 (EST)
== The elephant in the room ==
Until the atheist community practices more of what [[medical science]] and [[exercise science]] recommends to do in order to have a healthy lifestyle, the issue of [[atheism and obesity]] will continue to be the elephant in the room. [[Shockofgod]] is entirely correct - [[Atheism and Mental and Physical Health|atheism is madness]]. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 21:16, 11 January 2011 (EST)
:You are absolutely correct. Thank you very much for being brave enough to publish the link between atheism and obesity - I've not seen it mentioned in the lamestream media or on liberal sites. In fact I tried to add such to the article but was reverted for not having a cite for it, do you have a good cite that shows a lack of MSM coverage of the link between atheism and obesity please? [[User:DanielG|DanielG]] 21:27, 11 January 2011 (EST)
::::The MSM is losing market share as a whole and the internet is taking away their market share. Feel free to spread the word about atheism and obesity far and wide and with great alacrity across the internet and in your community as I think the slow moving overweight and obese atheist community will not be able to effectively compete with you. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 21:37, 11 January 2011 (EST)
== Wow! ==
I just read through nearly half of this article and fact-checked every claim it made, and there wasn't so much as one single error. To whoever the authors are, this is quite the article!--[[User:AnthonyDW|AnthonyDW]] 18:27, 19 January 2011 (EST)
== Daniel Dennett and coronary bypass surgery ==
Picture of overweight Daniel Dennett: http://www.flickr.com/photos/7230309@N05/3708479160/ Daniel Dennett and coronary bypass surgery: http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/dennett06/dennett06_index.html
== Stephen Fry ==
Hey, reading through this article I see many people have been mentioned, but I feel it is a bit unfair to mention Stephen Fry. To his credit he has lost a lot of weight recently, as illustrated here: [http://www.globalgranary.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=172&d=1296818872] [[User:RodgerW|RodgerW]] 08:34, 19 March 2011 (EDT)
: As an extra note I just found a daily mail article on it: [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1217335/Has-Stephen-Fry-gone-far-Actor-shows-amazing-stone-weight-loss.html] [[User:RodgerW|RodgerW]] 18:07, 19 March 2011 (EDT)
:::::Thanks. I just added this to the article: "In 2009, the Mail Online reported that Stephen Fry went from being "appallingly corpulent" to having a weight where he can "at last bear to look at himself in the mirror again". However, in March of 2011, Stephen Fry appeared to be once again overweight.[http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/stephen_fry_backs_tiny_norfolk_theatre_1_842092] [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 04:05, 27 March 2011 (EDT)
== video of Michael Nugent ==
The overweight atheist activist Michael Nugent said that for technical reasons the video of him I cited made him looker fatter than he actually is. Accordingly, I used slimmer looking video of the overweight atheist Michael Nugent that does not make him look more overweight than he actually is.[[User:Conservative|conservative]] 20:05, 3 July 2011 (EDT)
== NorthWestern University study ==
Since I've always thought the whole "atheists are fat" thing was quite childish and bordering on out-and-out name calling, I thought I would share this-<br />http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42256829/ns/health-diet_and_nutrition/<br />Now can we drop it and start writing about more intelligent viewpoints? We have economically and socially superior ideas, and it pains me to see this site get bogged down by petty insults. [[User:EricAlstrom|EricAlstrom]] 12:35, 25 March 2011 (EDT)
: I hope you don't expect people at this site to take a study like this done by liberal atheist professors at its word. It's probably the most blatantly defensive study I've seen in years, and a clear attempt to whitewash clear evidence linking atheists like them to obesity. The only question is did they concoct this phony study as a direct response to Conservapedia's own [[Atheism and obesity]] article? I would not be in the least surprised if they did. [[User:AngusT|AngusT]] 14:15, 25 March 2011 (EDT)
::::Eric, what is truly childish is you trying to compare the [[atheism and obesity|enormous Gallup study in terms of sample size and geographic diversity in the United States]] (a study which used [[Generalized linear model]] analysis with very relevant variables) and [[atheism and obesity|other data Conservapedia has brought forth]] and you trying to show equivalency with your much smaller NorthWestern University study. Also, Eric were the participants of the NorthWestern taken from all across the United States or does the study merely reflect the behavior in a much smaller locale? Also, please compare the sample sizes of the respective studies and report them here. Next, did the NorthWestern study report on the "very religious" like the Gallup study did? In the book of Revelation, Jesus did say not to be lukewarm and he would spit lukewarm people out of his mouth. As far as I am aware, there are no reports of Jesus or the apostles being overweight like [[atheism and obesity|some of the modern apostles of atheism]] such as [[PZ Myers]]. And if you want to play the geography game like some atheist [http://www.unifreethought.com/2011/01/blag-hag-those-fatty-mcfat-fat-atheists.html "blag hag"], I would remind you that [[atheism and obesity|most Christians are non-western today and most non-westerners are quite thin]] plus the Gallup study used [[generalized linear model]] analysis (using very relevant variables) in relation to religiousity and health practices. :) Also, if the NorthWestern University study participants were exclusively from Illinois, they very well could have used plenty of abortion loving "faux Christians". Bottom line Eric, I could see you trying to use the NorthWestern study and not discussing [[atheism and obesity|the much larger Gallup study and other data Conservapedia brought forth]] if you were an [[PZ Myers|overweight atheist blogger at scienceblogs.com who had his brain impaired due to being overweight]], but please do not do it here. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 04:57, 27 March 2011 (EDT)
:::::::By the way, it appears as if some atheists have taken offense to the above data I cited and are trying to use the [http://onegoodmove.org/fallacy/style.htm style over substance fallacy] to criticize me. Of course, this provides additional data that atheists are often illogical. [[Atheism and Mental and Physical Health|Atheism is madness!]] Evolutionism [http://www.conservapedia.com/Evolution#Theory_of_Evolution.2C_Liberalism.2C_Atheism.2C_and_Irrationality is madness as well]. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 12:39, 27 March 2011 (EDT)
::::::::Conservative, how can you complain about style over substance when you're trying to prove atheism wrong by calling people fat? Do we need to point out the fallacies involved? [[User:DGibbs|DGibbs]] 12:45, 27 March 2011 (EDT)
The Conservapedia atheism article describes atheism and related matters (effects, causes, prominent figures current in atheism and atheist history, etc.). I realize that some people may become upset if Conservapedia mentions various facts about atheism and matters relating to atheism, however. The Conservapedia atheism article certainly does not say the atheist community has some problems with obesity, therefore atheism is not valid. I would suggest reading the atheism article a few more times if you have reading comprehension difficulties. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 17:46, 8 June 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::Setting aside the issue that no internet atheist has beheld/confirmed my form nor has proved my identity/gender etc., you neglected to indicate who you are referring to as "we". I hope you are not a member of a website whose atheist leader has height/weight proportion challenges. :) Next, where have I ever said that because various atheists are fat and the Gallup survey indicated that being very religious is associated with people being more trim, therefore atheism is wrong? I most certainly have not. While I do find there is [[Overweight atheists comedy and satire|some humor associated with atheism and obesity]], the existence of various atheists ignoring [[medical science]] and [[exercise science]] and engaging in [[gluttony]] does not prove atheism is wrong. By the way, [[Essay: Atheism is a clown and it did not know it|please provide proof and evidence that atheism is true]]. Christendom has certainly provided [[Christian apologetics|a great amount of evidence indicating its veracity]] despite some slothful atheists at a website headed by an overweight atheist claiming the contrary because they are too lazy to click some links in the external link section of Conservapedia's [[Christian apologetics]] article. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 13:44, 27 March 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::Your form? Come off it. I know you're not aware of just how obvious you can be, but you are no man of mystery. And as far as membership goes, I have no interest in those people and call none of them my leader. It's a very boring place, they've been doing the same thing for years. Yes, you're using certain people's obesity as an argument against atheism. And that's indefensible, both logically and ethically. You keep coming back to this Christian apologetics thing. I have no personal interest in atheism. Make an argument and I can be convinced. I want to know how apologetics proves anything about the existence of God. Can you do that, or are you just quotes and links? [[User:DGibbs|DGibbs]] 14:21, 27 March 2011 (EDT)
:::DGibbs, For a person who supposedly has no personal interest in atheism, you sure do sound very much like an atheist. I am certainly not convinced of your sincerity at this point.
Conservative, I have read your article [[Atheism and obesity]] as well as the [http://www.gallup.com/poll/145379/Religious-Americans-Lead-Healthier-Lives.aspx Gallup study] which it is based upon and which you have referred to above. While the article is perfectly valid in discussing the findings that "Very religious Americans are more likely to practice healthy behaviors than those who are moderately religious or nonreligious" you have gone beyond what the evidence indicates.
The Gallup study does not mention obesity, Body mass index or even weight in the summary of its findings. It does not say that any one group is more or less prone to obesity than the other. Indeed, if you look at [http://www.well-beingindex.com/methodology.asp Gallup's methodology] you will note that obesity is not one of the things measured under 'healthy behavior'. While it is measured under 'physical health' this category is not utilised by the study in question.
Certainly, 'eating healthily', 'weekly consumption of fruits and vegetables' and 'weekly exercise frequency' are all important factors in a person's susceptibility to obesity. But lower levels of these three criteria most certainly cannot be interpreted as signalling that someone is obese, nor that any one group is more obese. The way the study presents the data means that we do not know exactly how much healthy food people were eating or for how many hours they were exercising etc.; we only know relative values. Therefore, all groups measured might have been considered healthy, but some may simply have been ''more'' healthy. Given this and the difficulty in inferring obesity from these variables, it is not valid to conclude that obesity was higher or lower for any group; the study did not measure obesity at all.
You also point out a major flaw yourself in the article: ''The Gallup study gives some insight into the above average health habits of the very religious and not necessarily the health habits of atheists. The reason is that the Gallup organization defines a non-religious as a person where "Religion is not an important part of daily life and church/synagogue/mosque attendance occurs seldom or never. This group constitutes 29.7% of the adult population."[5] While many Western atheists are non-religious, not all non-religious people are atheists.'' It is therefore not possible to say that atheists are more obese, both given the fact that atheists are not specifically the focus of the study, and the fact that obesity is not measured in it. As you concede in your article, there is no way of knowing what proportion of the non-religious group were atheist. [[User:WilliamB1|WilliamB1]] 14:19, 27 March 2011 (EDT)
:I don't see any valid objections to [[atheism and obesity|the atheism and obesity entry]] in the comments above, and the MSNBC-reported study would get a poor grade if turned in to me as a high school science teacher. Church "functions" include dinners that attract and generate obese people! It is patently absurd to combine church "functions" with attendance at church prayer services, where all one need do is look around and observe a less obese culture than what one sees among college professors and in train and bus stations.
:As to the resistance to equating atheism to non-religious people, there is an undeniable overlap and continuum. Let's not claim that lung cancer would depend entirely on ''which'' brand of cigarette someone smokes!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:13, 27 March 2011 (EDT)
::::It appears as if some atheists want to engage in the [http://onegoodmove.org/fallacy/exclus.htm fallacy of exclusion] and not address [[Atheism and obesity|the non-Gallup data that Conservapedia provided]]. It also appears as if someone wants to engage in the [http://onegoodmove.org/fallacy/sloth.htm slothful induction] fallacy and not give due weight (pardon the pun) to the very obvious tie between diet/exercise and obesity. Also, to date, no atheists has found a single factual error in the Conservapedia [[atheism and obesity]] article. Next, it is apparent that at least one member of this discussion is an unreasonable atheist and have no desire at this time to wrangle with an unreasonable atheist. If others want to continue the discussion, however, I would not be opposed to this. By the way, by the end of today, [[Atheist Population|there will be approximately 300 less atheists in the world and approximately 80,000 new people describing themselves as Christians.]] :) Perhaps, if atheist leaders addressed the atheist communities' problem with obesity with greater effectiveness, the numerical decline of the atheist "herd" ([http://s2.hubimg.com/u/4004069_f520.jpg some of whom are obese] and subject to a greater chance of succumbing to their mortality} might be reduced somewhat. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 15:44, 27 March 2011 (EDT)
::Stop repeating yourself already. The whole accusing other people of logical fallacies thing doesn't really work when you're entire argument is based on one big non seq and ad hom. And I'm being unreasonable expecting you to be able to articulate your own beliefs instead of just spamming links to an article about Christian Apologetics?
I don't deny that there's an overlap between atheism and non-religiosity, indeed the former is a sub-group of the latter. But the point that the two are not exactly the same is taken from the atheism and obesity article itself. [[User:WilliamB1|WilliamB1]] 16:00, 27 March 2011 (EDT)
:Why do I not find it surprising that liberals and atheists are more concerned with a website highlighting the obesity problem among atheists, rather than with the obesity problem itself! [[User:MichaelOL|MichaelOL]] 16:07, 27 March 2011 (EDT)
I haven't found any news organizations that linked to the actual obesity study conducted by NorthWestern University/Matthew Feinstein relating to some religious activities. I did find this credible source which says Feinstein did statistical analysis to rule out other factors such as race: http://www.uamshealth.com/HealthLibrary/Default.aspx?ContentTypeID=6&ContentID=651145 Can anyone provide the actual study to see what variables they did statistical analysis on to rule them out as being the causal factors? [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 22:17, 27 March 2011 (EDT)
:If anyone wants to contact this science editor http://www.northwestern.edu/newscenter/stories/2011/03/religious-young-adults-obese.html , she may be able to direct someone to actual study. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 22:24, 27 March 2011 (EDT)
::Perhaps you could write the lab and ask them to Release the Data. [[User:Martyp|Martyp]] 22:30, 27 March 2011 (EDT)
:::The Gallup people used a random dialer and had a much larger sample size. I read some place online that the primary places the NorthWestern participants came from was the cities of Chicago, Minneapolis, Birmingham, Alabama and Oakland, California. I am primarily interested in whether the researchers took into account income and education. It does appear as if they might not had enough geographical diversity. The study seems big city oriented if the reports of the cities and the study are true. That certainly could make a difference. For example, at an upscale suburban church they might have a booth for premium coffee, fruit, and fruit smoothies after a service while at a less well heeled church they could be serving donuts and coffee after the service. Martyp, since there appears to be some new atheist editors at Conservapedia who take exception to the Conservapedia [[atheism and obesity]] article, I have a feeling that they might attempt to present the actual study. In the meantime, I am going to attend to some personal matters. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 22:48, 27 March 2011 (EDT)
== NorthWestern U study new data ==
Here is what I read before:
"But researchers have also found signs that people who attend services put on more weight. In the new study, which will be released Wednesday at an American Heart Association conference in Atlanta, researchers sought to follow people over time to see what happened to them. They examined a previous long-term study that tracked 2,433 people who were aged 20 to 32 in the mid-1980s.
'''Most of the participants were women, and 41 percent were black.'''
After adjusting their statistics to take into account factors such as race, the researchers found that 32 percent of those who attended services the most became obese by middle age, Feinstein said.
Whatever the case, he said, the study points to the role that '''places of worship could play in reducing obesity.'''
"They can become part of the solution," explained Dr. Daniel P. Sulmasy, a professor of medicine and ethics at the University of Chicago, perhaps by increasing awareness of obesity and holding health fairs.
'''"Pastors, especially those in poor neighborhoods, could champion programs for more fresh produce and less fast food in their neighborhoods," Sulmasy added.'''[http://www.uamshealth.com/HealthLibrary/Default.aspx?ContentTypeID=6&ContentID=651145]
'''<big>It does appear that there are some church people in less affluent areas that are starting to become part of the solution:</big>'''
The study tracked 2,433 young men and women for 18 years in '''Chicago, Minneapolis, Birmingham, Ala., and Oakland, Calif.'''
In the study, “frequent” religious participation meant attending at least one event per week. Most, but not all of the participants, were Christians — reflecting the dominant religion in the United States, Feinstein said.
'''Courtney Parker, the catering manager for the 20,000-member Apostolic Church of God in Woodlawn,''' said he’s not entirely surprised by the study’s results. Parker suspects there may be a historical connection between over-eating and going to church. In years gone by, so many things were taboo — but not eating, Parker said.
Years ago, “church services ran long,” Parker said. “So the first thing you do is go eat, and then you go to sleep.”
'''Parker said Apostolic has made a point in recent years of serving healthy food at church events. So you’re more likely to see baked fish or chicken, rather than pizza, on the menu'''[http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/4490719-460/religion-and-obesity-study-links-church-and-being-fat.html] - cited from Chicago Sun Times, March 25, 2011
Of course, what I wrote above still applies:
Eric, what is truly childish is you trying to compare the [[atheism and obesity|enormous Gallup study in terms of sample size and geographic diversity in the United States]] (a study which used [[Generalized linear model]] analysis with very relevant variables) and [[atheism and obesity|other data Conservapedia has brought forth]] and you trying to show equivalency with your much smaller NorthWestern University study. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 16:05, 19 April 2011 (EDT)
==Additional content==
While I feel obesity is a Western culture phenom, there are many more examples of obese atheists to add. Try a search for celebrity atheists and you'll be quite surprised. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 22:31, 20 April 2011 (EDT)
:As the East gains more access to process food via global markets and gains in prosperity, obesity is spreading to the East as can be seen in this report on India.[http://hindu.com./2007/10/12/stories/2007101260940600.htm] However, unlike atheists, Christians have lots of songs including dance music. Indian Christian dancers seem to be fairly immune to obesity. Please see: [[Essay: Penn Jillette's walrus slide vs. thin Christian lady dancers|Penn Jillette's walrus slide vs. thin Christian lady dancers]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 08:16, 16 July 2011 (EDT)
== Relation to obesity ==
Can we get a study that directly relates to obesity? These seem to be generalized studies about health practices without any physical data. A proper study should confirm the results, but it would be better to use an obesity-specific study or at least one with obesity-specific conclusions than to use this one and make assumptions about obesity.
I'm also not that comfortable with these more questionable anti-atheism arguments because they trivialize the importance of religion. It's trivial whether you look good or lose a few inches off your belly, it's much more important how you define yourself as a member of this world and the next. I know lots of slightly pudgy Christians (while I'm not obese, I could lose a few pounds) who are nonetheless more spiritually healthy than all the skinny atheists out there.
Make fun of me all you want, but I would like to see less of this kind of article and more on the matters of substance.[[User:KingHanksley|KingHanksley]] 22:37, 3 May 2011 (EDT)
:::The article offers a lot of data and studies plus over 130 footnotes with relevant information. Some individuals, such as PZ Myers, don't appreciate being a data point and poster boy. :) Second, faith without works is dead and the Bible says by your fruits you shall know them. The Bible also says that the Holy Spirit empowers people to have more self-discipline and that gluttony is a sin. The Gallup study and the world wide population of Christendom is very favorable to Christianity as far as health practices/slimness especially when you compare it to the [http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism_and_obesity#American_Atheists_organization American Atheists board of directors] and [[New Atheism leadership and problems with being overweight|the make up of the New Atheism leadership]]. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 10:12, 5 May 2011 (EDT)
::::But let's be realistic. This is just anecdotal evidence (obese individuals out of millions nationwide) and one study that, while large in sample size, isn't about obesity. The reason obesity is chosen is because it's a) funny and b) reverses a stigma that liberals like to attach to conservatives. I get it. But the case is weak. It's quality of evidence, not quantity. This is the kind of thinking I see in the most foolish of liberal college students and is too childish for us to engage in. We are better than that. We should strive to be.
:::::To say that all overweight people are gluttons (or sloths) is a generalization. Some hard-working Christians eat just to relieve hunger, but find our bodies change as we grow older and do less work on our feet. Do you not see any hefty people with your church, or among your neighbors? When I do, I do not assume they are bad Christians. And I do not assume that atheists are flawed in any way besides their lack of faith and morals. The Bible has a lot to say about talebearing too.
::::Back to the topic at hand - if the hard evidence is there, let us find it. This Gallup study is not about obesity and the anecdotal evidence is meaningless (just as libs try to use anecdotal evidence to attack Christians and Republicans).
[[User:KingHanksley|KingHanksley]] 12:28, 5 May 2011 (EDT)
:::The article merely gives evidence relating to atheism and obesity/being overweight. Although some atheists on the internet have tried to deny that I cited instances of overweight and/or obese atheists, such denialism was unwarranted. The article does not say the extent of the problem of obesity within the atheist community. It also gives data relating to the very religious and health practices, obesity, health practices of various populations, and related matters (Mayo Clinic data). The reason why the article gets under some atheists' skin (particularly those whose skin are on the thicker side), is that atheism is all about denialism (such as denying the [[Christian apologetics|abundant evidence for Christianity]], [[atheism and mass murder]], etc.). The evidence I did present was accurate and had some relevancy. People can make their own conclusions based on the accurate and relevant data I presented concerning the extent of the obesity problem within the atheist community. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 08:42, 10 May 2011 (EDT)
::::::By the way, Jesus said, "Be ye perfect...". Unlike [[PZ Myers]], Jesus was perfect and had no problems with being overweight. Jesus was a carpenter. Perhaps, PZ Myers should consider getting into carpentry and spend less time pursuing sedentary activities such a blogging about atheist nonsense. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 10:02, 10 May 2011 (EDT)
== Obese atheists wax museum ==
::::I am considering opening up an obese atheists wax museum. :) Any thoughts? :) [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 10:45, 5 May 2011 (EDT)
What would the entrance fee be? [[User:WilliamB1|WilliamB1]] 11:00, 5 May 2011 (EDT)
:::Pretty steep to cover the amount of wax that would have to be used. For example, if I had an "Overweight and obese atheists wax museum", take a look at the amount of wax that would have to be used [http://www.flickr.com/photos/cfimi/5244769742/ HERE]. I would feel sorry for the bees having to do that much work for the wax that would be needed. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 14:26, 5 May 2011 (EDT)
== My intentions. ==
This was supposed to be a message to user:conservative but I cannot edit his page for some reason so I'll mention it here. I am a Christian and have been interested in learning more about creationism (which is how I found Conservapedia). However I find your obesity and atheism series to be purile at best. This is no indictment of you ''as a person'', conservative, merely that I think this is the wrong way to attack atheism. Let us fight on what we '''know''' are the logic failings of atheism insteadx of sneering about a biologist that appears slightly overweight. Remembering that the latest statistics state nearly half of the population in the US are overweight....as far as I know atheists are in the minority in the US hence obesity afflicts people ''indescriminate'' of religious belief (yes, I classify atheism as a religious belief). Let us have an intellectual victory, this isn't a beauty contest. I am hoping to create a rebuttal essay, my intentions are to bring forward a dissenting view. Please feel free to engage me in debate or throw any questions my way. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 00:56, 28 May 2011 (EDT)
:A helpful tip. I would recommend using the Firefox browser to edit Conservapedia as it has a spelling checker which would aid you in the spelling of words such as puerile. Second, the Conservapedia atheism article describes atheism and related matters (effects, causes, prominent figures current in atheism and atheist history, etc.). I realize that some people may become upset if reality "attacks" atheism, however. Next, is [http://www.flickr.com/photos/cfimi/5244769742/ this picture] a picture of someone slightly overweight? Next, how do you know that different worldviews affect rates of obesity equally? For example, the very religious, the moderately religious, the irreligious and atheists? Next, I realize that certainly people may crave intellectual victories because they: always lose in chess/Go/Othello/Risk/Monopoly; always lose their debates with spouses/girlfriends/boyfriends and in-laws; always come up on the short end of the stick in negotiations; are in intellectually unfulfilling occupations; have trouble figuring out how their computers and remote controls work; can't figure out how to get their dog to listen to them, etc. Yet, I am very content creating descriptive article content. Now it is true that I have posted some material on non-article pages such as my User page/talk pages/satire/essay pages, etc. which alluded to/mentioned victory/defeat in a good-natured/humorous manner (exultant matador, wildfires, etc.) which some people enjoyed. Yet, after all is said an done, in articles I present meaningful information concerning a matter and endeavor to do so in a relevant manner. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 04:30, 28 May 2011 (EDT)
::I am not sure how to respond as you veer pretty far off topic. The Gallup survey cited does not mention atheism and there is no correlation as far as I can see. As stated above half the US population is overweight yet only about 9% are atheist so the numbers don't match. Atheism has many failings but being more prone to obesity isn't one of them and making snide attacks towards PZ Myers, for example, does not advance our cause. I don't really want this to be a debate. I will create my own essay (might take me awhile though as it is rare I get much time to write such things) and you may respond on it's talkpage when complete. Thanks, [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 16:46, 28 May 2011 (EDT)
:::I don't think anywhere near 9% of Americans are atheists and use this large survey to support this matter: http://b27.cc.trincoll.edu/weblogs/AmericanReligionSurvey-ARIS/reports/ARIS_Report_2008.pdf I don't have an inclination to discuss the atheists/obesity matter further with you given your previous posts. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 06:21, 3 June 2011 (EDT)
::::The survey you linked to says that 12% of Americans are atheists, so I don't think it exactly supports you. As it happens 12% ties in with the figure of 13% that I've seen in several other places and I have to say it seems credible. Atheism IS gaining ground in the USA, although it's nowhere near as bad as it is in Europe yet, which makes it all the more important that Conservapedia becomes a high-quality educational resource. No offence, but given the effort that's been put into pointless themes like obesity and atheism (which, even if true, proves exactly nothing about the validity of atheism) what could those man-hours have achieved if directed towards creating good, solid articles on scientific or social issues? --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 19:04, 13 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::Hi Sam, I gave up my intentions in trying to help Conservative with this. This entire article is predicated on a survey that doesn't mention either Obesity nor Atheism. Despite bringing this up numerous times Conservative has yet to address this problem and has made it abundantly clear that trying to discuss anything with him only leads to one being insulted, accusesations of not being a Christian followed by having to wade through paragraphs and paragraphs of non-sequiters. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:10, 13 September 2011 (EDT)
==My suggestions==
I think that two more points bear mentioning in the article. First, since recent studies show a correlation between rate of religious attendance and obesity, links to such studies would provide strong evidence in favor of the atheism-obesity link. Second, while the article mentions lesbianism and obesity, the male homosexual culture of personal irresponsibility would lead male homosexuals to a similar level of disregard for their physical fitness. [[User:DavidE|DavidE]] 09:39, 3 June 2011 (EDT)
:Actually in my experience male homosexuals take extreme care about their appearance, far more so than most heterosexual men do whether Christian or not. I'd say that a good 25% of the men who go to my gym are openly gay. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 19:09, 13 September 2011 (EDT)
:::DavidE, we covered the recent study you referred to. See above. Second, if you want to make a claim, please advance data to support it. Don't plan on checking this talk page very often. Saw your post to recent changes though. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 06:10, 7 June 2011 (EDT)
== Correction ==
Hi, this is my first edit. I am an East Asian Languages and Cultures major. I just read "[[Essay: Prominent atheists weighed on the scales and found wanting]]" and noticed a mistake. The essay has two pictures of what is supposed to be Siddhartha Guatama. The picture of the chunky fellow is actually Budai, who is, according to Buddhist lore, an incarnation of the Maitreya Buddha. Maitreya and Guatama are two different deities. Guatama is always portrayed in art as either skinny or broad shouldered and muscular. The mis-identification needs to be corrected. Although a satire, the essay makes a good point, so I think even small things like captions on pictures should be accurate. --[[User:Jimmyray|Jimmyray]] 08:25, 8 June 2011 (EDT)
:::Thanks, much appreciated. I removed the material. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 15:09, 8 June 2011 (EDT)
== a reply from penn jillette ==
:I just watched [http://revision3.com/pennpoint/fat_atheists this video]. He addresses this article. I should warn, though, that it is laced with profanity.--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 22:37, 20 June 2011 (EDT)
Thank you, here is my response: [[Essay: Conservapedia's reply to atheist Penn Jillette]] Here is my favorite line from the essay: "Of course, with his busy eating schedule, he probably found it difficult to read the whole article." [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 16:12, 22 June 2011 (EDT)
:You've missed equating us fat people with fluffy kitten haters though, so I guess I should be grateful. [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 13:51, 21 June 2011 (EDT)
SharonW, everyone makes mistakes in their lives. In many cases, it is the result of making bad choices. The common sense things Mr. Norris says about being overweight [[Chuck Norris on the topic of obesity|HERE]] are true. There is a reason why people in Asia are far thinner than Americans and many European countries. They make better choices when it comes to diet and exercise. I realize that some people have thyroid problems or other medical issues, but in most cases it comes down to diet and exercise. People in Asia eat healthier food and exercise more and I provided a responsible citation from the medical literature in this article indicating that Asians eat healthier food. In the majority of cases, being overweight is very fixable and I did provide the solutions to being overweight in the external link section of this article and I cited responsible sources such as the [[Mayo Clinic]] and WebMD.
As far as your charge that I have not equated overweight people with kitten haters, I would simply point out that you really can't show me anything in this article I wrote that is untrue/unreasonable. I guess you can claim that overweight people are largely that way because of their genes. However, I don't buy it. Here is why: http://blog.awpainrelief.com/health-issues-childhood-obesity/ Even Polynesian people who are more disposed to obesity did fine before they changed their dietary habits. Lastly, I am certainly not going to play online doctor and diagnose anyone's particular health issues so if you have health issues relating to being overweight, I will let you work out things with your physician. I really have no animosity towards you and hope the best for you. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 15:20, 21 June 2011 (EDT)
== Obesity article ==
1) Does the fact the talk page for the [[obesity]] article redirects here mean '''CP's official position''' is that '''all fat people are atheists'''? If not, please remove the redirect and allow comments on that page.
2) If the purpose of the obesity article is not to label '''all''' fat people as atheists, or lesbians, or liberals, please show some concern for the people struggling with this issue (obesity, not atheism, homosexuality or liberalism) by adding the different treatments available to reduce weight, including gastric bypass surgery, medication and counseling. Weight Watchers, Jenny Craig, and Nutrisystem are just a few popular programs.
Because in reality, the majority of fat people are ''not'' evil.
Thank you, [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 19:01, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
:I find this whole thing confusing. Obesity is rampant in the United States but Conservative also likes to claim that atheists are a mere squeak of the US population. Ergo, many religious people are obese also and the fattest states are also the most religious. None of it really makes any sense to me. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:07, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
:::Removed redirect that was done by a vandal. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:12, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
::::Max, please consider learning more about the [[Generalized linear model]] and multi-variable statistical analysis. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:13, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::OK, I'll do that if you learn more about obesity and it's relation to atheism (hint: there is no relation). [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:18, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
Thank you for the removal of the redirect. [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 19:46, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
==This material is offensive==
This material is offensive and does nothing to bring people in need to Christ. "''It's not what goes into your mouth that defiles you; you are defiled by the words that come out of your mouth"''" (Matt 15:11) and it is the ridicule coming out of the mouth of the author that defiles. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 20:08, 25 July 2011 (EDT)
:I notice you didn't point out any factual errors in the article and I am not going to censor factual information for you. I see no reason to cave in to an egotistical blowhard who is merely seeking payback. I also don't believe you know your Bible well. [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Amos%204&version=NASB Amos 4:1 - Hear this word, you cows of Bashan who are on the mountain of Samaria] Biblical commentary on Amos 4: "You cows of Bashan: Amos wasn’t trained as a prophet, he was a simple herdsman and farmer. When he wanted to get the point across to the indulgent women of Israel, he called them fat cows."[http://www.enduringword.com/commentaries/3004.htm] Titus 1:12: "One of themselves, a prophet of their own, said, "Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons." If you think I am going to let a egotist suck up my time for no good reason, think again. By the way, it is funny and awfully convenient that you suddenly find the material to be offensive now. Please grow up. You wonder why I don't want to communicate with you. It is undisciplined and petty outbursts like this that is one of the prime reasons. I have zero trust in your integrity. I also think you have little reluctance to try to stab others in the back if it strikes your fancy. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:08, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
::This is nonsense. What evidence is there the "the indulgent women of Israel" were Atheists? And please refrain from incivility and personal attacks. Thank you. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 11:54, 30 July 2011 (EDT)
:::A factual error has been pointed out many times over, by me as well as others. The study does not mention atheists nor does the study mention obesity - there is no factual connection between Atheism and Obesity. That is an error. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 16:39, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::How did I misrepresent a study. I didn't. If you are going to post on the talk page, please post something worthwhile. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:49, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::The study does not mention atheism nor obesity. The study shows no link between the two. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 16:54, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::: Hasn't Mr. Schlafly addressed this before and said that the link between atheism and obesity should not be censored? --[[User:BradleyS|BradleyS]] 17:08, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::Conservative asked about a factual error and I pointed one out. Who mentioned Andy or censorship? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:10, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::: Rob mentioned this material as being "offensive". What's offensive about a fact? And why say that unless you want to censor? --[[User:BradleyS|BradleyS]] 17:25, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::What fact? This who page is based on a Gallup study that mentions neither obesity or atheism. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:26, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
Max, this isn't rocket science. I provided commentary on the Gallup study in the article. You either need to read better, express yourself better or be more honest. I hope it's not the latter. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:33, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
:Your commentary does not match what the study says - your commentary is factually in error. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:35, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
:::Max, I suggest getting a new optometrist. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:03, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
::::All the study says is that more religious people choose healthier diets. There is nothing about Atheism nor Obesity in the study. You leapt to that conclusion on your own and it is factually unsupported by the study. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 20:11, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::RobS, grow up. I merely pointed out above that the Bible does talk about obesity/gluttony in populations. I think the more you hang out with atheist buddies and try to court them with this type of bootlicking to curry their favor, the more you are going to find facts to be offensive. I am going to have to agree with BradleyS's comment above. I also continue to believe your timing is awfully convenient in terms of your petulant complaint and this is merely a petty and spurious attempt at payback. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 12:12, 30 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::*''The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold a [[gluttony|glutton]], and a winebibber, a friend of publicans<ref>publicans were [[collaborator]]s with the enemy, Jews who collected taxes from Jews to support the Roman occupation troops.</ref> and sinners. But wisdom is justified of her children.'' (Matt 11:19) [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 12:20, 30 July 2011 (EDT)
{{reflist}}
RobS, I know you are spoiling for fight with me at this time, but I am not going to cooperate and be drawn into senseless contention. I also suggest if you truly want to make some positive changes to Conservapedia that you engage in less factious and unwarranted behavior. Based on recent communications to me, you are going to find it much more difficult to gain the cooperation of your fellow Conservapedians if you continue down your present path. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:00, 30 July 2011 (EDT)
:You know, you don't have to respond to every post you're name is mentioned. See [[Last wordism]]. Also, please do not presume to telepathically understand other's motives, or impugn other's motives with your imagination. It can be misconstrued as incivility. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:24, 30 July 2011 (EDT)
::What "senseless contention" are you referring to? It's certainly not people calling to your attention the several unsupported arguments you make in these hitpieces. You've failed to carry your burden that there's even a correlation between atheism and obesity, yet you continue hectoring and sneering at these people. Why is that? That's not what I would call openmindedness or cooperation. [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 14:29, 30 July 2011 (EDT)
===factual===
:User:conservative you keep insisting that this material is factual and ignoring what everybody else is saying about it. But whether or not it's "factual" isn't the point, and it's rather disingenuous of you to keep insisting that it is.
:Do you make fun of the handicapped? Because it would be "factual," wouldn't it, to call a person with disabilities a cripple. Lots of things are factual, but here people are expressing concern over your apparent need to mock and degrade. What is it that you are trying to prove with these "facts?" You do know that there are overweight Christians and physically fit atheists, don't you? It seems to everybody that you are only pointing and saying "HaHa! You're fat."--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 15:33, 30 July 2011 (EDT)
::CamilleT, if you feel strongly about this matter, I think you should contact your elected representatives and ask them to include being overweight as a disability. Perhaps, you could get some equal access laws passed too requiring: extra wide doorways, extra wide seating in all public transit and heavy duty shock absorbers installed in all taxis. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:57, 30 July 2011 (EDT)
:::I not sure why I'm trying again, but come on, Conservative. What exactly is your goal behind these articles where you're equating fat people with atheists and gays and I can't remember what else? These article don't appear to express any true concern about overweight people and our very real issues; instead, it appears as though we're just convenient whipping boys. We're one of the few remaining subgroups in society that are considered fair game without our denigrators becoming social pariahs. Your writings reflect many of the typical attitudes people display toward fat people - we're supposed to accept any and all insults, fat jokes and negative stereotypes because I guess it's assumed we're not "real" people with "real" feelings. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 23:59, 30 July 2011 (EDT)
::::The article provides data relating to atheism and obesity and related matters. It also provides some helpful information. I don't see the point of repeating myself. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:30, 1 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::You are wasting your time Sharon. Conservative has shown himself to be entirely impervious to either logical argument or to any appeal to civility or empathy. He is determined to plough ahead with these disgraceful articles which bring this site into disrepute. In spite of his name he is clearly no real conservative. --[[User:CharlesDN|CharlesDN]] 00:07, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::Charles, as far as your empathy comment, have you read Conservapedia's article [[Atheism and uncharitableness]] and [[Atheism and mass murder]] articles? [[Atheist Population|Atheists as a population]] are not known for their empathy. Perhaps, if some atheists weren't so busy engaging in their costly habit of [[gluttony]], they would have more money to donate to others. Plus, the greater the aggregate world demand for food, the higher the price of food so [[Atheism and obesity|obese atheists]] are not making things easy for people having difficulty with rising food prices. Now I realize there are people with legitimate medical reasons for being overweight such a thyroid problems, but I have to agree with this article as a whole: [[Chuck Norris on the topic of obesity]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:28, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::So... because atheists are not empathetic it is ok for your not to be empathetic? Hmm. I think you had better re-examine your "conservative" values. Furthermore, it has been pointed out to you on multiple occasions that your Gallup poll does not mention either atheists or obesity. On every occasion you have utterly failed to explain how your article is supported by that poll. I suggest that you consider removing your atheist/fatties "articles". Finally, I really don't care what Chuck Norris has to say on any topic outside of acting. --[[User:CharlesDN|CharlesDN]] 00:35, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::I have mentioned many times over Conservative, '''there is no mention of atheism or obesity in the gallup study'''. It is an error you have yet to address aside from deflection. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 00:37, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::Interesting. I had not bothered to question the actual data, rather its presentation and its implications, but with this it seems User:conservative is wrong on every single level. Go on, deflect away, conservative.--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 19:46, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::::::Whining, kvetching and pretending will not make the Gallup study cease to mention the very religious nor will it remove the non-Gallup data I offered. As far as the Gallup data and the non-religious and its relevance, each person has to decide for themselves how similar non-religious people are to atheists in terms of health habits unless there is data I am not aware of that compares the two. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wL9ZleOXzQ0 This song] reminds me of many whiners and pretenders concerning this article.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:14, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::Show me where in the essay your "non-Gallup" data supports a correlation between atheism and obesity. Show me where the Gallup poll supports the specific conclusion that atheists are obese. Walk me and everyone who thinks you're dead wrong though this. Apparently none of us is as good a reader as you are. [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 21:28, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::::::::I presented 25 written pages of data and content relating to atheism and obesity. I am very content to let readers decide its relevance. Please feel free to offer more prominent overweight atheist to be included. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:10, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::::But what is it based on? Because the Gallup study '''does not''' support the conclusion. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:13, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::::::I am thinking of adding [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZDs88uWKrk&feature=relmfu HappyCabbie] as an example of a overweight YouTube atheist. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:15, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::::::::::::If someone is looking for a list of overweight atheists on the internet this article is easily found.[http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy&hl=en&source=hp&q=list+of+overweight+atheists&pbx=1&oq=list+of+overweight+atheists&aq=f&aqi=&aql=1&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=2887l12923l0l13407l29l24l1l8l8l0l350l3232l0.11.5.1l17l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=661c0b1152c259b4&biw=1024&bih=514][http://www.bing.com/search?q=list+of+overweight+atheists&form=MOZSBR&pc=MOZI][http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=list+of+overweight+atheists&ei=UTF-8&fr=moz35] :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:38, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::::::::::::::::I don't understand Conservative, you have never answered the most basic of questions and I am rather bewildered. The Gallup study never mentions atheism or obesity and obesity affects nearly half of all US citizens yet you yourself state atheist are in the extreme minority (1.9% if I remember correctly). Please help me understand where you are drawing your conclusions from. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:42, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::::::::::::::::::So, all your information comes from a few online atheists? Without statistics, you have nothing. Should I add that I, who does not believe in any deities or supernatural forces, am not fat? Where does that leave your careful analysis? Or are you just cherry picking? Because I can name overweight Christians pretty easily too (off the top of my head: Bill Donahue, John Hagee and his son; Jack Chick is pretty burly looking; various self-professed Christians not involved in preaching such as Joe Barton, Newt Gingrich, Michael Steele, and the late Jerry Fallwell).--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 22:49, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
"Conservative", answer two simple and direct questions simply and directly. No more of your deflection. Show me where in the essay your "non-Gallup" data supports a correlation between atheism and obesity. Show me where the Gallup poll supports the specific conclusion that atheists are obese. I'll give you a hint, and this time I'm flat out calling you a liar if you give another ridiculous non-response: it's not in there. Your campaign to slander your opponents however childishly and dishonestly you can is casting this website in disrepute. For one of the few times in a year I did a google search for Conservapedia and specifically the rubbish you call articles. You in particular get overwhelmingly negative attention, even from Christians and conservatives. Please desist before you bring more shame to our doorstep. [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 23:18, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
== Via several weird redirected talk pages... ==
Ken, you realize the reason Penn won't debate you is that he suspects you are a parodist ''extraordinaire'', right? It's not because he is a bunny, or a burning building, it's because he thinks you edit here to discredit CP. Can you write an essay that proves this wrong?
Best regards,
Huw [[User:Human|Human]] 02:57, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
:::[[Essay: This year's best atheist debaters]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 07:17, 4 August 2011 (EDT)
:Could you give us an example where you, Conservative, debated someone about Atheism, Evolution, etc.? On the talk-pages I've seen so far you havn't won any ''discussion''...
:[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 08:54, 4 August 2011 (EDT)
:::RonLar, I think you are an [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2eMkth8FWno atheist/evolutionist black knight] and can safely be ignored. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:39, 4 August 2011 (EDT)
::This is a prime example of another argument you just lost:A You won't win any debate by just ignoring your opponents: it's like your [[Question evolution! campaign]] in Texas - what good does it do ''contact Texas churches'', that's not where the atheists you are trying to convert hang out!
::[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 09:47, 4 August 2011 (EDT)
::To explain the above in detail: if there were some example of a discussion on a talk page where you, Conservative, have successfully debated an atheist/Darwinist/Evolutionist, you would have no problem to link to it. The fact that you don't do so, but instead choose an [[ad hominem]] as an answer implies that
::- there isn't such a discussion or
::- if there is, you have lost.
::And that's why you were able to lose this simple argument in two sentences - congratulations!
::[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 09:53, 4 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::I find it interesting that members of a certain atheist website incessantly whine about this article. Is there any leader or are there any leaders of that atheist website who could easily shed some poundage? The reason I mention this is that generally speaking the stuck pig squeals the loudest. :) I do know that a significant percentage of the leaders of the [[New Atheism]] movement had problems with being overweight (see: [[New Atheism leadership's problem with excess weight]] ). I also know that a number of [[American Atheists]]'s board of directors could benefit by losing some weight as can be seen [http://www.atheists.org/about/Board_of_Directors HERE]. Instead of whining about this article, I do think that some atheists could better spend their time by asking prominent atheist "fat cats" to lose some weight. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 10:25, 5 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::*A stuck pig squeals - whether it was stuck rightfully or not. You know, sometimes the innocent protest, too.
::::::*You didn't answer my question (''Could you give us an example where you, Conservative, debated someone about Atheism, Evolution, etc.?'') but again went on a tangent.
::::::*BTW, is this the way you intent to ''win'' debates: hinting that your opposite is fat - or that he knows some fat people?
::::::*Try to regard our little exchange of comments as a discussion. Reread it. Reflect on it. Could you answer any of the questions? How many valid points have you made? (The answer is '''none''')
::::::[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 11:40, 5 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::: *cough* I am a Christian conservative, and I must say that this discussion has made me curious. Conservative, why aren't you just giving this guy examples of debates you've won if you have them? I mean, I don't ''want'' you to be wrong or anything, but this is just confusing, and frankly, this discussion has almost proven to me that RonLar is right and not you, Conservative. ''Why not just release whatever debates you have?'' And RonLar DOES have a fine, perfectly fair question. All he wants is an example of where you debated someone about Atheism, Evolution, or a related topic. That request shouldn't be too hard to fulfill. Even if he is an atheist, that doesn't make his question less valid. --[[User:StoryMaker|StoryMaker]] 17:18, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::StoryMaker, I will let readers decide if you are a bona fide Christian conservative. Personally, I am skeptical. Next, this talk page is for the [[atheism and obesity]] article. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:22, 19 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::Ah, an ''ad hominem'', again. And still - after a month - the question ''Could you give us an example where you, Conservative, (successfully) debated someone about Atheism, Evolution, etc.?'' is unanswered, or, to be more precise, it is implicitly answered '''no'''... [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 09:22, 15 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::Ron, what would you call a "successful" debate? It seems to me that debates rarely finish with one party saying "I was wrong, you have changed my mind", no matter how comprehensively they are out-argued, so perhaps it is unfair to ask Conservative to produce such an example. (This is particularly true online, where obstinacy abounds.) In my view, a truly "successful" debate is one containing absorbing dialog that advances or deepens the understanding of all parties - and examples of these can be found all over Conservapedia talk pages.
:::::::::Perhaps now you could take this case as closed and move on to another issue?--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:58, 15 September 2011 (EDT)
== Nominate for deletion ==
I'd like to propose that this article should be deleted; we could use a shortened version as a section of the "Atheism and health" article. It's just not solid enough to be a standalone article, and frankly it also lets atheists accuse Conservapedia of relying on ad hominems. Are we trying to provide a valuable educational resource or just insult atheists? Some people are far too quick to label atheists as malevolent, insane or abnormal. Well, most of them aren't; they're simply people who don't believe in God and they're generally well educated and intelligent. Some of them are going to take us seriously if we can present good, reasoned arguments. However if the best we can do is to call them fat bum bandits they're just going to laugh at us and so, I'm afraid to say, based on conversations I've had with friends from church about what I've been trying to do here, are a lot of Christians. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 19:28, 13 September 2011 (EDT)
:::SamCoulter, before your suggestion is given merit, I think you need to do a better job at refuting the data in the article plus show that atheist community has adequately addressed their sin problem and the problems sin is causing within their community. By the way SamCoulter, what does the Bible say about atheists and what does the Bible say about fools? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:00, 13 September 2011 (EDT)
::::As has been pointed out on numerous occasions the data in the article mentions neither atheism nor obesity. As for the atheist community's sin problem, if there IS an atheist community sin isn't a concept that will have any meaning to it so they're not going to see a problem. Sin is going against God's law, so the issue of atheists and their attitude to sin can be fairly easily deduced from that. I know what the bible says about atheists and I know what it says about fools - essentially that they're the same thing - but what do atehists care about what the bible says? They don't care if it says that they're fools and I do believe it's their minds that we should be trying to change here. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 20:12, 13 September 2011 (EDT)
===An idea===
Why don't we have a vote on whether this should remain an article of be moved to essay? We'd have disqualify users who haven't been here awhile to stop vandals and the like swinging the vote. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 20:24, 13 September 2011 (EDT)
:I'm happy to be excluded from that vote because I've only been here a month or so, but I think it's an excellent idea. As an essay, a personal opinion, it's perfectly reasonable. As an encyclopaedia article? Not so much. Conservapedia has massive potential - and I'll say right now that User:Conservative has been quite helpful to me in my efforts to improve it - but this article WOULD be better as an essay. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 21:37, 13 September 2011 (EDT)
Max, before you invoke [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5XqZjAybWXk mob rule], why don't you point to a single factual error in the article first? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:08, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
:Firstly I was explicitly against mob rule by stating it should only be trusted user to vote. Second: ''why don't you point to a single factual error in the article first?''....I have! You have ignored it time and time again! The entire page is predicated on a survey '''that doesn't mention atheism or obesity!''' That, sir, is a factual error! [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 01:18, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
::I have tried having this conversation with you many times - look at some of my comments above '''the Gallup study does not support the conclusion'''. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 01:19, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
::::Max, there is a number of bodies of evidence (some of them very corpulent) that I presented in the 24 pages of material for this article. :) Stop using the [[fallacy of exclusion]] and deal with the entire WEIGHT of evidence that the atheist community has problems with obesity within their community. :) By the way, I do find it telling that you cannot find a single factual error in the 24 page article. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:23, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::Stop moving the goalposts Conservative. You asked me to find a single error and I have found a single error. It is not a fallacy of exclusion, you asked and I answered. The Gallup Study '''does not''' support your conclusion. That is a single error and that is all you asked me point out. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 01:29, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
Max, we both know you found nothing. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:36, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
:Conservative, can you not find ''anything'' positive to write about regarding fat people? You've worked hard to tie us to atheists, homosexuals, lesbians, evolutionists, feminists and Alzheimer's (that I know of), but nothing that a conservative Christian would consider good. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 02:03, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
::::Sharon, the topic of the article is [[Atheism and obesity]]. The question you pose is beyond the scope of the article. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:08, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::Pardon my confusion about the topic, because this article meanders from '''obesity''' to fat homosexuals to '''neurotic fat people who must be atheists because they obviously have mental and emotional issues''', to various '''"nanner-nanner, you're fat" sections on atheists''', to Chuck Norris talking about the internet, '''to internet atheism, to more "nanner-nanner, you're fat" sections''', back to fat homosexuals, then to fat lesbians, to chubby homosexuals, to fat evolutionists, '''back to neurotic, depressed fat people must be atheists''', to fat people can't get married, to physical ailments fat people get, to fat Alzheimer's patients, to fat people believing in UFOs because they lack self-discipline, to more UFO stuff (seriously, ''UFOs''?), to giving statistics about the growth of Christianity, to Chuck Norris saying fat people are horrid,''' to overcoming obesity by being a Christian, and finally to a list of pages making fun of fat atheists'''. The way I see it, the bolded sections are the only ones with a tenuous connection to the title of this article.
:::::But I believe you answered my question anyway, so I thank you for that. It's really too bad you can't find ''any'' good in people with weight issues. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 11:36, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::I think a lot of Conservative's articles are made to be thought-provoking - to ask you to think about things you might not normally consider. [[User:Taj|Taj]] 12:20, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::Well, I agree this ''started'' as thought provoking but when finding out that the very source the entire thrust of this article hangs on neither mentions obesity or atheism it stops become thought provoking and becomes fallacious. When this is then pointed out to the author who completely ignores it it becomes an embarrassment. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 16:50, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::::Max, when are you going to show 3 things: 1) The entire thrust of the article hangs on the Gallup study. 2) It is wrong to provide data on the very religious 3) There is a marked difference between the non-religious and atheists (I leave this question up to the readers). Seeing as the article has over 20 pages of material with various bodies of data, I think #1 is impossible for you to maintain. On the other hand, being in clear error has never stopped you before. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:00, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::How many surveys in this article draw a relation between physical health and religious beliefs? I can only see one - the Gallup Study. Hence the entire premise, that atheism and obesity are somehow correlated, hang on the Gallup study. I am happy to be proven wrong. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:13, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::Please show me where I have been "in clear error" before and I will happily apologise for it. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:15, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
Max, you need help that I cannot provide and I suggest going to a optometrist. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:36, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
:Since you cannot show me another study, in this article, relating to health and religiosity, then I will stand by my original comments. I will gladly apologise if wrong but at this stage there is a critical flaw in the article. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:45, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
==it must be a joke==
Come on, this article is just nonsense, I clearly suspect Conservative to be a parodist. You cannot just list fifty fat atheist and say that ALL atheists are fat, that's just WRONG! I can easily find 50 fit ahteist and conclude that ALL atheists are fit ! Another interesting fact should be to compare obesity rate in Europe and America and then to compare atheism in Europe and America. More atheists in Europe but more obeses in America ? What should I conclude here ? --[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 01:16, 15 September 2011 (EDT)
:::Where does the article say all atheists are fat? Secondly, comparing apples to apples is more scientific such as comparing very religious European people to European atheists. You can also do statistical analysis to measure particular variables. I suggest taking remedial reading classes plus taking a few courses in statistics.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:21, 15 September 2011 (EDT)
::::Obesity by states: [http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/trends.html]. Intersting to see that more religious states are those with the more obese people. Conclusion: either religious people are fatter, either atheists living with religious people get fatter than atheists living with atheists. Another study arguing for fatter christians: [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42256829/ns/health-diet_and_nutrition/#.TnJ9RuzDGZ8]. Personnaly I believe that you can be fat or fit whether you are a christian, an atheist, a buddhist or whatever you want.--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 18:35, 15 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::ARamis, the Feinstein study you linked to only showed a correlation between obesity and how religious people were AS YOUNG ADULTS; he didn't check how religious the obese subjects are NOW. Nevertheless as far as its conclusions go it seems valid and it's one more reason why this article should be deleted. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 12:23, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
::That would be great for you if we lived world with one or two variables. Unfortunately for you, we don't. I am used to atheists not understanding statistics and science so I am not upset. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:39, 15 September 2011 (EDT)
:::Oh Conservative, please explain to me where I failed, please excuse my pride for daring oppose the Conservapedia "facts". Please provide your statistical data (where is it?) that would open my eyes to the Truth.--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 18:56, 15 September 2011 (EDT)
::::ARamis, you do have a pride issue as demonstrated by your lack of apology for incorrectly declaring the article supposedly said all atheist are fat. I see no point in having a discussion with someone who is reluctant to graciously admit error. Second, my post above dealt with your obesity by states "argument". I see now you posted a link the MSNBC article. Third, the NorthWestern study was already discussed (see above). I have nothing further to add on this point. Lastly, I think its pointless to have discussions with atheists on this matter who refuse to tackle the article in a more comprehensive manner as I see it as merely engaging in [[fallacy of exclusion]] "reasoning". [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:31, 15 September 2011 (EDT)
What's with this article? I'm an atheist, I'm 5' 9", 160 pounds, I bike to school almost every day, I eat healthy food, I hike, I work out from time to time and I know at least a couple of other atheist (I don't know many people all together) who have similar life styles. What gives? [[User:JamesTimmons|JamesTimmons]] 23:04, 1 January 2011 (EST)
:::James, are you familiar with the concept of "sample size"? Assuming "a couple" means two, as it does in proper American English, you know three people who are supposedly atheists. '''Thousands''' identify as atheists. Is three out of thousands really a sample size worthy of any consideration? (Especially coming from an online anonymous source of school-going age) ???--ADW
I'm not changing the article here, so I don't need any outside sources for anything I've said here, I'm just stating an observation. [[User:JamesTimmons|JamesTimmons]] 23:11, 1 January 2011 (EST)
::::You are '''proposing''' a major change to this article and challenging basic scientific findings. Where are your sources?--[[User:AnthonyDW|AnthonyDW]] 11:05, 2 January 2011 (EST)
:::::I would also like to point out that I live in a predominately atheist area and very few people I know are overweight. I don't doubt that atheism is a worse lifestyle choice - I just don't see that it has any correlation to obesity. Furthermore, I don't think ad hominem attacks on a few overweight famous atheists is going to convince anyone, and it also seems horribly unprofessional. [[User:RkWilko|RkWilko]] 23:08, 2 January 2011 (EST)
::::::There sure are a lot of atheists who are thin skinned about the subject of fat atheists. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 17:05, 3 January 2011 (EST)
:::::::::RkWilko, Gallup's study takes into account geographic to create a more [[ceteris paribus]] study in terms of what they studied. Do you have a ceteris paribus like study concerning atheism and obesity? Also, did you see the pictures of the [[American Atheists]] board of directors? What are your thoughts about how fat or thin they are generally speaking? [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 14:15, 8 January 2011 (EST)
This section: "While all atheists are non-religious..." is provided without citation. It's pretty obvious why it has no citation. It's false. There are plenty of atheist Buddhists and Humanists, for example.
Furthermore, providing a few examples of overweight atheists does nothing to prove the article's truth. That's just bad inductive reasoning. If I were to show a few skinny Hindus, would that prove that most Hindus are thin? Of course not.
Given Conservapedia's dedication to providing information that is as accurate as possible, I'm sure that someone in control of this article will make the necessary corrections. Thanks in advance. --[[User:Tylero|Tylero]] 16:54, 6 January 2011 (EST)
::::Fixed. I wrote: While many [[Western World|Western]] atheists are non-religious, not all non-religious people are atheists. I did this to avoid the contentious debate on whether Western atheism is a religion. I believe it can be easily argued that Western atheism is a religion and that is probably going to be incorporated in the atheism article at a future date. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 22:48, 7 January 2011 (EST)
== The elephant in the room ==
Until the atheist community practices more of what [[medical science]] and [[exercise science]] recommends to do in order to have a healthy lifestyle, the issue of [[atheism and obesity]] will continue to be the elephant in the room. [[Shockofgod]] is entirely correct - [[Atheism and Mental and Physical Health|atheism is madness]]. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 21:16, 11 January 2011 (EST)
:You are absolutely correct. Thank you very much for being brave enough to publish the link between atheism and obesity - I've not seen it mentioned in the lamestream media or on liberal sites. In fact I tried to add such to the article but was reverted for not having a cite for it, do you have a good cite that shows a lack of MSM coverage of the link between atheism and obesity please? [[User:DanielG|DanielG]] 21:27, 11 January 2011 (EST)
::::The MSM is losing market share as a whole and the internet is taking away their market share. Feel free to spread the word about atheism and obesity far and wide and with great alacrity across the internet and in your community as I think the slow moving overweight and obese atheist community will not be able to effectively compete with you. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 21:37, 11 January 2011 (EST)
== Wow! ==
I just read through nearly half of this article and fact-checked every claim it made, and there wasn't so much as one single error. To whoever the authors are, this is quite the article!--[[User:AnthonyDW|AnthonyDW]] 18:27, 19 January 2011 (EST)
== Daniel Dennett and coronary bypass surgery ==
Picture of overweight Daniel Dennett: http://www.flickr.com/photos/7230309@N05/3708479160/ Daniel Dennett and coronary bypass surgery: http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/dennett06/dennett06_index.html
== Stephen Fry ==
Hey, reading through this article I see many people have been mentioned, but I feel it is a bit unfair to mention Stephen Fry. To his credit he has lost a lot of weight recently, as illustrated here: [http://www.globalgranary.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=172&d=1296818872] [[User:RodgerW|RodgerW]] 08:34, 19 March 2011 (EDT)
: As an extra note I just found a daily mail article on it: [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1217335/Has-Stephen-Fry-gone-far-Actor-shows-amazing-stone-weight-loss.html] [[User:RodgerW|RodgerW]] 18:07, 19 March 2011 (EDT)
:::::Thanks. I just added this to the article: "In 2009, the Mail Online reported that Stephen Fry went from being "appallingly corpulent" to having a weight where he can "at last bear to look at himself in the mirror again". However, in March of 2011, Stephen Fry appeared to be once again overweight.[http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/stephen_fry_backs_tiny_norfolk_theatre_1_842092] [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 04:05, 27 March 2011 (EDT)
== video of Michael Nugent ==
The overweight atheist activist Michael Nugent said that for technical reasons the video of him I cited made him looker fatter than he actually is. Accordingly, I used slimmer looking video of the overweight atheist Michael Nugent that does not make him look more overweight than he actually is.[[User:Conservative|conservative]] 20:05, 3 July 2011 (EDT)
== NorthWestern University study ==
Since I've always thought the whole "atheists are fat" thing was quite childish and bordering on out-and-out name calling, I thought I would share this-<br />http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42256829/ns/health-diet_and_nutrition/<br />Now can we drop it and start writing about more intelligent viewpoints? We have economically and socially superior ideas, and it pains me to see this site get bogged down by petty insults. [[User:EricAlstrom|EricAlstrom]] 12:35, 25 March 2011 (EDT)
: I hope you don't expect people at this site to take a study like this done by liberal atheist professors at its word. It's probably the most blatantly defensive study I've seen in years, and a clear attempt to whitewash clear evidence linking atheists like them to obesity. The only question is did they concoct this phony study as a direct response to Conservapedia's own [[Atheism and obesity]] article? I would not be in the least surprised if they did. [[User:AngusT|AngusT]] 14:15, 25 March 2011 (EDT)
::::Eric, what is truly childish is you trying to compare the [[atheism and obesity|enormous Gallup study in terms of sample size and geographic diversity in the United States]] (a study which used [[Generalized linear model]] analysis with very relevant variables) and [[atheism and obesity|other data Conservapedia has brought forth]] and you trying to show equivalency with your much smaller NorthWestern University study. Also, Eric were the participants of the NorthWestern taken from all across the United States or does the study merely reflect the behavior in a much smaller locale? Also, please compare the sample sizes of the respective studies and report them here. Next, did the NorthWestern study report on the "very religious" like the Gallup study did? In the book of Revelation, Jesus did say not to be lukewarm and he would spit lukewarm people out of his mouth. As far as I am aware, there are no reports of Jesus or the apostles being overweight like [[atheism and obesity|some of the modern apostles of atheism]] such as [[PZ Myers]]. And if you want to play the geography game like some atheist [http://www.unifreethought.com/2011/01/blag-hag-those-fatty-mcfat-fat-atheists.html "blag hag"], I would remind you that [[atheism and obesity|most Christians are non-western today and most non-westerners are quite thin]] plus the Gallup study used [[generalized linear model]] analysis (using very relevant variables) in relation to religiousity and health practices. :) Also, if the NorthWestern University study participants were exclusively from Illinois, they very well could have used plenty of abortion loving "faux Christians". Bottom line Eric, I could see you trying to use the NorthWestern study and not discussing [[atheism and obesity|the much larger Gallup study and other data Conservapedia brought forth]] if you were an [[PZ Myers|overweight atheist blogger at scienceblogs.com who had his brain impaired due to being overweight]], but please do not do it here. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 04:57, 27 March 2011 (EDT)
:::::::By the way, it appears as if some atheists have taken offense to the above data I cited and are trying to use the [http://onegoodmove.org/fallacy/style.htm style over substance fallacy] to criticize me. Of course, this provides additional data that atheists are often illogical. [[Atheism and Mental and Physical Health|Atheism is madness!]] Evolutionism [http://www.conservapedia.com/Evolution#Theory_of_Evolution.2C_Liberalism.2C_Atheism.2C_and_Irrationality is madness as well]. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 12:39, 27 March 2011 (EDT)
::::::::Conservative, how can you complain about style over substance when you're trying to prove atheism wrong by calling people fat? Do we need to point out the fallacies involved? [[User:DGibbs|DGibbs]] 12:45, 27 March 2011 (EDT)
The Conservapedia atheism article describes atheism and related matters (effects, causes, prominent figures current in atheism and atheist history, etc.). I realize that some people may become upset if Conservapedia mentions various facts about atheism and matters relating to atheism, however. The Conservapedia atheism article certainly does not say the atheist community has some problems with obesity, therefore atheism is not valid. I would suggest reading the atheism article a few more times if you have reading comprehension difficulties. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 17:46, 8 June 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::Setting aside the issue that no internet atheist has beheld/confirmed my form nor has proved my identity/gender etc., you neglected to indicate who you are referring to as "we". I hope you are not a member of a website whose atheist leader has height/weight proportion challenges. :) Next, where have I ever said that because various atheists are fat and the Gallup survey indicated that being very religious is associated with people being more trim, therefore atheism is wrong? I most certainly have not. While I do find there is [[Overweight atheists comedy and satire|some humor associated with atheism and obesity]], the existence of various atheists ignoring [[medical science]] and [[exercise science]] and engaging in [[gluttony]] does not prove atheism is wrong. By the way, [[Essay: Atheism is a clown and it did not know it|please provide proof and evidence that atheism is true]]. Christendom has certainly provided [[Christian apologetics|a great amount of evidence indicating its veracity]] despite some slothful atheists at a website headed by an overweight atheist claiming the contrary because they are too lazy to click some links in the external link section of Conservapedia's [[Christian apologetics]] article. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 13:44, 27 March 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::Your form? Come off it. I know you're not aware of just how obvious you can be, but you are no man of mystery. And as far as membership goes, I have no interest in those people and call none of them my leader. It's a very boring place, they've been doing the same thing for years. Yes, you're using certain people's obesity as an argument against atheism. And that's indefensible, both logically and ethically. You keep coming back to this Christian apologetics thing. I have no personal interest in atheism. Make an argument and I can be convinced. I want to know how apologetics proves anything about the existence of God. Can you do that, or are you just quotes and links? [[User:DGibbs|DGibbs]] 14:21, 27 March 2011 (EDT)
:::DGibbs, For a person who supposedly has no personal interest in atheism, you sure do sound very much like an atheist. I am certainly not convinced of your sincerity at this point.
Conservative, I have read your article [[Atheism and obesity]] as well as the [http://www.gallup.com/poll/145379/Religious-Americans-Lead-Healthier-Lives.aspx Gallup study] which it is based upon and which you have referred to above. While the article is perfectly valid in discussing the findings that "Very religious Americans are more likely to practice healthy behaviors than those who are moderately religious or nonreligious" you have gone beyond what the evidence indicates.
The Gallup study does not mention obesity, Body mass index or even weight in the summary of its findings. It does not say that any one group is more or less prone to obesity than the other. Indeed, if you look at [http://www.well-beingindex.com/methodology.asp Gallup's methodology] you will note that obesity is not one of the things measured under 'healthy behavior'. While it is measured under 'physical health' this category is not utilised by the study in question.
Certainly, 'eating healthily', 'weekly consumption of fruits and vegetables' and 'weekly exercise frequency' are all important factors in a person's susceptibility to obesity. But lower levels of these three criteria most certainly cannot be interpreted as signalling that someone is obese, nor that any one group is more obese. The way the study presents the data means that we do not know exactly how much healthy food people were eating or for how many hours they were exercising etc.; we only know relative values. Therefore, all groups measured might have been considered healthy, but some may simply have been ''more'' healthy. Given this and the difficulty in inferring obesity from these variables, it is not valid to conclude that obesity was higher or lower for any group; the study did not measure obesity at all.
You also point out a major flaw yourself in the article: ''The Gallup study gives some insight into the above average health habits of the very religious and not necessarily the health habits of atheists. The reason is that the Gallup organization defines a non-religious as a person where "Religion is not an important part of daily life and church/synagogue/mosque attendance occurs seldom or never. This group constitutes 29.7% of the adult population."[5] While many Western atheists are non-religious, not all non-religious people are atheists.'' It is therefore not possible to say that atheists are more obese, both given the fact that atheists are not specifically the focus of the study, and the fact that obesity is not measured in it. As you concede in your article, there is no way of knowing what proportion of the non-religious group were atheist. [[User:WilliamB1|WilliamB1]] 14:19, 27 March 2011 (EDT)
:I don't see any valid objections to [[atheism and obesity|the atheism and obesity entry]] in the comments above, and the MSNBC-reported study would get a poor grade if turned in to me as a high school science teacher. Church "functions" include dinners that attract and generate obese people! It is patently absurd to combine church "functions" with attendance at church prayer services, where all one need do is look around and observe a less obese culture than what one sees among college professors and in train and bus stations.
:As to the resistance to equating atheism to non-religious people, there is an undeniable overlap and continuum. Let's not claim that lung cancer would depend entirely on ''which'' brand of cigarette someone smokes!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:13, 27 March 2011 (EDT)
::::It appears as if some atheists want to engage in the [http://onegoodmove.org/fallacy/exclus.htm fallacy of exclusion] and not address [[Atheism and obesity|the non-Gallup data that Conservapedia provided]]. It also appears as if someone wants to engage in the [http://onegoodmove.org/fallacy/sloth.htm slothful induction] fallacy and not give due weight (pardon the pun) to the very obvious tie between diet/exercise and obesity. Also, to date, no atheists has found a single factual error in the Conservapedia [[atheism and obesity]] article. Next, it is apparent that at least one member of this discussion is an unreasonable atheist and have no desire at this time to wrangle with an unreasonable atheist. If others want to continue the discussion, however, I would not be opposed to this. By the way, by the end of today, [[Atheist Population|there will be approximately 300 less atheists in the world and approximately 80,000 new people describing themselves as Christians.]] :) Perhaps, if atheist leaders addressed the atheist communities' problem with obesity with greater effectiveness, the numerical decline of the atheist "herd" ([http://s2.hubimg.com/u/4004069_f520.jpg some of whom are obese] and subject to a greater chance of succumbing to their mortality} might be reduced somewhat. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 15:44, 27 March 2011 (EDT)
::Stop repeating yourself already. The whole accusing other people of logical fallacies thing doesn't really work when you're entire argument is based on one big non seq and ad hom. And I'm being unreasonable expecting you to be able to articulate your own beliefs instead of just spamming links to an article about Christian Apologetics?
I don't deny that there's an overlap between atheism and non-religiosity, indeed the former is a sub-group of the latter. But the point that the two are not exactly the same is taken from the atheism and obesity article itself. [[User:WilliamB1|WilliamB1]] 16:00, 27 March 2011 (EDT)
:Why do I not find it surprising that liberals and atheists are more concerned with a website highlighting the obesity problem among atheists, rather than with the obesity problem itself! [[User:MichaelOL|MichaelOL]] 16:07, 27 March 2011 (EDT)
I haven't found any news organizations that linked to the actual obesity study conducted by NorthWestern University/Matthew Feinstein relating to some religious activities. I did find this credible source which says Feinstein did statistical analysis to rule out other factors such as race: http://www.uamshealth.com/HealthLibrary/Default.aspx?ContentTypeID=6&ContentID=651145 Can anyone provide the actual study to see what variables they did statistical analysis on to rule them out as being the causal factors? [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 22:17, 27 March 2011 (EDT)
:If anyone wants to contact this science editor http://www.northwestern.edu/newscenter/stories/2011/03/religious-young-adults-obese.html , she may be able to direct someone to actual study. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 22:24, 27 March 2011 (EDT)
::Perhaps you could write the lab and ask them to Release the Data. [[User:Martyp|Martyp]] 22:30, 27 March 2011 (EDT)
:::The Gallup people used a random dialer and had a much larger sample size. I read some place online that the primary places the NorthWestern participants came from was the cities of Chicago, Minneapolis, Birmingham, Alabama and Oakland, California. I am primarily interested in whether the researchers took into account income and education. It does appear as if they might not had enough geographical diversity. The study seems big city oriented if the reports of the cities and the study are true. That certainly could make a difference. For example, at an upscale suburban church they might have a booth for premium coffee, fruit, and fruit smoothies after a service while at a less well heeled church they could be serving donuts and coffee after the service. Martyp, since there appears to be some new atheist editors at Conservapedia who take exception to the Conservapedia [[atheism and obesity]] article, I have a feeling that they might attempt to present the actual study. In the meantime, I am going to attend to some personal matters. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 22:48, 27 March 2011 (EDT)
== NorthWestern U study new data ==
Here is what I read before:
"But researchers have also found signs that people who attend services put on more weight. In the new study, which will be released Wednesday at an American Heart Association conference in Atlanta, researchers sought to follow people over time to see what happened to them. They examined a previous long-term study that tracked 2,433 people who were aged 20 to 32 in the mid-1980s.
'''Most of the participants were women, and 41 percent were black.'''
After adjusting their statistics to take into account factors such as race, the researchers found that 32 percent of those who attended services the most became obese by middle age, Feinstein said.
Whatever the case, he said, the study points to the role that '''places of worship could play in reducing obesity.'''
"They can become part of the solution," explained Dr. Daniel P. Sulmasy, a professor of medicine and ethics at the University of Chicago, perhaps by increasing awareness of obesity and holding health fairs.
'''"Pastors, especially those in poor neighborhoods, could champion programs for more fresh produce and less fast food in their neighborhoods," Sulmasy added.'''[http://www.uamshealth.com/HealthLibrary/Default.aspx?ContentTypeID=6&ContentID=651145]
'''<big>It does appear that there are some church people in less affluent areas that are starting to become part of the solution:</big>'''
The study tracked 2,433 young men and women for 18 years in '''Chicago, Minneapolis, Birmingham, Ala., and Oakland, Calif.'''
In the study, “frequent” religious participation meant attending at least one event per week. Most, but not all of the participants, were Christians — reflecting the dominant religion in the United States, Feinstein said.
'''Courtney Parker, the catering manager for the 20,000-member Apostolic Church of God in Woodlawn,''' said he’s not entirely surprised by the study’s results. Parker suspects there may be a historical connection between over-eating and going to church. In years gone by, so many things were taboo — but not eating, Parker said.
Years ago, “church services ran long,” Parker said. “So the first thing you do is go eat, and then you go to sleep.”
'''Parker said Apostolic has made a point in recent years of serving healthy food at church events. So you’re more likely to see baked fish or chicken, rather than pizza, on the menu'''[http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/4490719-460/religion-and-obesity-study-links-church-and-being-fat.html] - cited from Chicago Sun Times, March 25, 2011
Of course, what I wrote above still applies:
Eric, what is truly childish is you trying to compare the [[atheism and obesity|enormous Gallup study in terms of sample size and geographic diversity in the United States]] (a study which used [[Generalized linear model]] analysis with very relevant variables) and [[atheism and obesity|other data Conservapedia has brought forth]] and you trying to show equivalency with your much smaller NorthWestern University study. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 16:05, 19 April 2011 (EDT)
==Additional content==
While I feel obesity is a Western culture phenom, there are many more examples of obese atheists to add. Try a search for celebrity atheists and you'll be quite surprised. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 22:31, 20 April 2011 (EDT)
:As the East gains more access to process food via global markets and gains in prosperity, obesity is spreading to the East as can be seen in this report on India.[http://hindu.com./2007/10/12/stories/2007101260940600.htm] However, unlike atheists, Christians have lots of songs including dance music. Indian Christian dancers seem to be fairly immune to obesity. Please see: [[Essay: Penn Jillette's walrus slide vs. thin Christian lady dancers|Penn Jillette's walrus slide vs. thin Christian lady dancers]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 08:16, 16 July 2011 (EDT)
== Relation to obesity ==
Can we get a study that directly relates to obesity? These seem to be generalized studies about health practices without any physical data. A proper study should confirm the results, but it would be better to use an obesity-specific study or at least one with obesity-specific conclusions than to use this one and make assumptions about obesity.
I'm also not that comfortable with these more questionable anti-atheism arguments because they trivialize the importance of religion. It's trivial whether you look good or lose a few inches off your belly, it's much more important how you define yourself as a member of this world and the next. I know lots of slightly pudgy Christians (while I'm not obese, I could lose a few pounds) who are nonetheless more spiritually healthy than all the skinny atheists out there.
Make fun of me all you want, but I would like to see less of this kind of article and more on the matters of substance.[[User:KingHanksley|KingHanksley]] 22:37, 3 May 2011 (EDT)
:::The article offers a lot of data and studies plus over 130 footnotes with relevant information. Some individuals, such as PZ Myers, don't appreciate being a data point and poster boy. :) Second, faith without works is dead and the Bible says by your fruits you shall know them. The Bible also says that the Holy Spirit empowers people to have more self-discipline and that gluttony is a sin. The Gallup study and the world wide population of Christendom is very favorable to Christianity as far as health practices/slimness especially when you compare it to the [http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism_and_obesity#American_Atheists_organization American Atheists board of directors] and [[New Atheism leadership and problems with being overweight|the make up of the New Atheism leadership]]. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 10:12, 5 May 2011 (EDT)
::::But let's be realistic. This is just anecdotal evidence (obese individuals out of millions nationwide) and one study that, while large in sample size, isn't about obesity. The reason obesity is chosen is because it's a) funny and b) reverses a stigma that liberals like to attach to conservatives. I get it. But the case is weak. It's quality of evidence, not quantity. This is the kind of thinking I see in the most foolish of liberal college students and is too childish for us to engage in. We are better than that. We should strive to be.
:::::To say that all overweight people are gluttons (or sloths) is a generalization. Some hard-working Christians eat just to relieve hunger, but find our bodies change as we grow older and do less work on our feet. Do you not see any hefty people with your church, or among your neighbors? When I do, I do not assume they are bad Christians. And I do not assume that atheists are flawed in any way besides their lack of faith and morals. The Bible has a lot to say about talebearing too.
::::Back to the topic at hand - if the hard evidence is there, let us find it. This Gallup study is not about obesity and the anecdotal evidence is meaningless (just as libs try to use anecdotal evidence to attack Christians and Republicans).
[[User:KingHanksley|KingHanksley]] 12:28, 5 May 2011 (EDT)
:::The article merely gives evidence relating to atheism and obesity/being overweight. Although some atheists on the internet have tried to deny that I cited instances of overweight and/or obese atheists, such denialism was unwarranted. The article does not say the extent of the problem of obesity within the atheist community. It also gives data relating to the very religious and health practices, obesity, health practices of various populations, and related matters (Mayo Clinic data). The reason why the article gets under some atheists' skin (particularly those whose skin are on the thicker side), is that atheism is all about denialism (such as denying the [[Christian apologetics|abundant evidence for Christianity]], [[atheism and mass murder]], etc.). The evidence I did present was accurate and had some relevancy. People can make their own conclusions based on the accurate and relevant data I presented concerning the extent of the obesity problem within the atheist community. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 08:42, 10 May 2011 (EDT)
::::::By the way, Jesus said, "Be ye perfect...". Unlike [[PZ Myers]], Jesus was perfect and had no problems with being overweight. Jesus was a carpenter. Perhaps, PZ Myers should consider getting into carpentry and spend less time pursuing sedentary activities such a blogging about atheist nonsense. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 10:02, 10 May 2011 (EDT)
== Obese atheists wax museum ==
::::I am considering opening up an obese atheists wax museum. :) Any thoughts? :) [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 10:45, 5 May 2011 (EDT)
What would the entrance fee be? [[User:WilliamB1|WilliamB1]] 11:00, 5 May 2011 (EDT)
:::Pretty steep to cover the amount of wax that would have to be used. For example, if I had an "Overweight and obese atheists wax museum", take a look at the amount of wax that would have to be used [http://www.flickr.com/photos/cfimi/5244769742/ HERE]. I would feel sorry for the bees having to do that much work for the wax that would be needed. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 14:26, 5 May 2011 (EDT)
== My intentions. ==
This was supposed to be a message to user:conservative but I cannot edit his page for some reason so I'll mention it here. I am a Christian and have been interested in learning more about creationism (which is how I found Conservapedia). However I find your obesity and atheism series to be purile at best. This is no indictment of you ''as a person'', conservative, merely that I think this is the wrong way to attack atheism. Let us fight on what we '''know''' are the logic failings of atheism insteadx of sneering about a biologist that appears slightly overweight. Remembering that the latest statistics state nearly half of the population in the US are overweight....as far as I know atheists are in the minority in the US hence obesity afflicts people ''indescriminate'' of religious belief (yes, I classify atheism as a religious belief). Let us have an intellectual victory, this isn't a beauty contest. I am hoping to create a rebuttal essay, my intentions are to bring forward a dissenting view. Please feel free to engage me in debate or throw any questions my way. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 00:56, 28 May 2011 (EDT)
:A helpful tip. I would recommend using the Firefox browser to edit Conservapedia as it has a spelling checker which would aid you in the spelling of words such as puerile. Second, the Conservapedia atheism article describes atheism and related matters (effects, causes, prominent figures current in atheism and atheist history, etc.). I realize that some people may become upset if reality "attacks" atheism, however. Next, is [http://www.flickr.com/photos/cfimi/5244769742/ this picture] a picture of someone slightly overweight? Next, how do you know that different worldviews affect rates of obesity equally? For example, the very religious, the moderately religious, the irreligious and atheists? Next, I realize that certainly people may crave intellectual victories because they: always lose in chess/Go/Othello/Risk/Monopoly; always lose their debates with spouses/girlfriends/boyfriends and in-laws; always come up on the short end of the stick in negotiations; are in intellectually unfulfilling occupations; have trouble figuring out how their computers and remote controls work; can't figure out how to get their dog to listen to them, etc. Yet, I am very content creating descriptive article content. Now it is true that I have posted some material on non-article pages such as my User page/talk pages/satire/essay pages, etc. which alluded to/mentioned victory/defeat in a good-natured/humorous manner (exultant matador, wildfires, etc.) which some people enjoyed. Yet, after all is said an done, in articles I present meaningful information concerning a matter and endeavor to do so in a relevant manner. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 04:30, 28 May 2011 (EDT)
::I am not sure how to respond as you veer pretty far off topic. The Gallup survey cited does not mention atheism and there is no correlation as far as I can see. As stated above half the US population is overweight yet only about 9% are atheist so the numbers don't match. Atheism has many failings but being more prone to obesity isn't one of them and making snide attacks towards PZ Myers, for example, does not advance our cause. I don't really want this to be a debate. I will create my own essay (might take me awhile though as it is rare I get much time to write such things) and you may respond on it's talkpage when complete. Thanks, [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 16:46, 28 May 2011 (EDT)
:::I don't think anywhere near 9% of Americans are atheists and use this large survey to support this matter: http://b27.cc.trincoll.edu/weblogs/AmericanReligionSurvey-ARIS/reports/ARIS_Report_2008.pdf I don't have an inclination to discuss the atheists/obesity matter further with you given your previous posts. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 06:21, 3 June 2011 (EDT)
::::The survey you linked to says that 12% of Americans are atheists, so I don't think it exactly supports you. As it happens 12% ties in with the figure of 13% that I've seen in several other places and I have to say it seems credible. Atheism IS gaining ground in the USA, although it's nowhere near as bad as it is in Europe yet, which makes it all the more important that Conservapedia becomes a high-quality educational resource. No offence, but given the effort that's been put into pointless themes like obesity and atheism (which, even if true, proves exactly nothing about the validity of atheism) what could those man-hours have achieved if directed towards creating good, solid articles on scientific or social issues? --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 19:04, 13 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::Hi Sam, I gave up my intentions in trying to help Conservative with this. This entire article is predicated on a survey that doesn't mention either Obesity nor Atheism. Despite bringing this up numerous times Conservative has yet to address this problem and has made it abundantly clear that trying to discuss anything with him only leads to one being insulted, accusesations of not being a Christian followed by having to wade through paragraphs and paragraphs of non-sequiters. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:10, 13 September 2011 (EDT)
==My suggestions==
I think that two more points bear mentioning in the article. First, since recent studies show a correlation between rate of religious attendance and obesity, links to such studies would provide strong evidence in favor of the atheism-obesity link. Second, while the article mentions lesbianism and obesity, the male homosexual culture of personal irresponsibility would lead male homosexuals to a similar level of disregard for their physical fitness. [[User:DavidE|DavidE]] 09:39, 3 June 2011 (EDT)
:Actually in my experience male homosexuals take extreme care about their appearance, far more so than most heterosexual men do whether Christian or not. I'd say that a good 25% of the men who go to my gym are openly gay. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 19:09, 13 September 2011 (EDT)
:::DavidE, we covered the recent study you referred to. See above. Second, if you want to make a claim, please advance data to support it. Don't plan on checking this talk page very often. Saw your post to recent changes though. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 06:10, 7 June 2011 (EDT)
== Correction ==
Hi, this is my first edit. I am an East Asian Languages and Cultures major. I just read "[[Essay: Prominent atheists weighed on the scales and found wanting]]" and noticed a mistake. The essay has two pictures of what is supposed to be Siddhartha Guatama. The picture of the chunky fellow is actually Budai, who is, according to Buddhist lore, an incarnation of the Maitreya Buddha. Maitreya and Guatama are two different deities. Guatama is always portrayed in art as either skinny or broad shouldered and muscular. The mis-identification needs to be corrected. Although a satire, the essay makes a good point, so I think even small things like captions on pictures should be accurate. --[[User:Jimmyray|Jimmyray]] 08:25, 8 June 2011 (EDT)
:::Thanks, much appreciated. I removed the material. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 15:09, 8 June 2011 (EDT)
== a reply from penn jillette ==
:I just watched [http://revision3.com/pennpoint/fat_atheists this video]. He addresses this article. I should warn, though, that it is laced with profanity.--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 22:37, 20 June 2011 (EDT)
Thank you, here is my response: [[Essay: Conservapedia's reply to atheist Penn Jillette]] Here is my favorite line from the essay: "Of course, with his busy eating schedule, he probably found it difficult to read the whole article." [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 16:12, 22 June 2011 (EDT)
:You've missed equating us fat people with fluffy kitten haters though, so I guess I should be grateful. [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 13:51, 21 June 2011 (EDT)
SharonW, everyone makes mistakes in their lives. In many cases, it is the result of making bad choices. The common sense things Mr. Norris says about being overweight [[Chuck Norris on the topic of obesity|HERE]] are true. There is a reason why people in Asia are far thinner than Americans and many European countries. They make better choices when it comes to diet and exercise. I realize that some people have thyroid problems or other medical issues, but in most cases it comes down to diet and exercise. People in Asia eat healthier food and exercise more and I provided a responsible citation from the medical literature in this article indicating that Asians eat healthier food. In the majority of cases, being overweight is very fixable and I did provide the solutions to being overweight in the external link section of this article and I cited responsible sources such as the [[Mayo Clinic]] and WebMD.
As far as your charge that I have not equated overweight people with kitten haters, I would simply point out that you really can't show me anything in this article I wrote that is untrue/unreasonable. I guess you can claim that overweight people are largely that way because of their genes. However, I don't buy it. Here is why: http://blog.awpainrelief.com/health-issues-childhood-obesity/ Even Polynesian people who are more disposed to obesity did fine before they changed their dietary habits. Lastly, I am certainly not going to play online doctor and diagnose anyone's particular health issues so if you have health issues relating to being overweight, I will let you work out things with your physician. I really have no animosity towards you and hope the best for you. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 15:20, 21 June 2011 (EDT)
== Obesity article ==
1) Does the fact the talk page for the [[obesity]] article redirects here mean '''CP's official position''' is that '''all fat people are atheists'''? If not, please remove the redirect and allow comments on that page.
2) If the purpose of the obesity article is not to label '''all''' fat people as atheists, or lesbians, or liberals, please show some concern for the people struggling with this issue (obesity, not atheism, homosexuality or liberalism) by adding the different treatments available to reduce weight, including gastric bypass surgery, medication and counseling. Weight Watchers, Jenny Craig, and Nutrisystem are just a few popular programs.
Because in reality, the majority of fat people are ''not'' evil.
Thank you, [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 19:01, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
:I find this whole thing confusing. Obesity is rampant in the United States but Conservative also likes to claim that atheists are a mere squeak of the US population. Ergo, many religious people are obese also and the fattest states are also the most religious. None of it really makes any sense to me. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:07, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
:::Removed redirect that was done by a vandal. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:12, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
::::Max, please consider learning more about the [[Generalized linear model]] and multi-variable statistical analysis. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:13, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::OK, I'll do that if you learn more about obesity and it's relation to atheism (hint: there is no relation). [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:18, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
Thank you for the removal of the redirect. [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 19:46, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
==This material is offensive==
This material is offensive and does nothing to bring people in need to Christ. "''It's not what goes into your mouth that defiles you; you are defiled by the words that come out of your mouth"''" (Matt 15:11) and it is the ridicule coming out of the mouth of the author that defiles. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 20:08, 25 July 2011 (EDT)
:I notice you didn't point out any factual errors in the article and I am not going to censor factual information for you. I see no reason to cave in to an egotistical blowhard who is merely seeking payback. I also don't believe you know your Bible well. [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Amos%204&version=NASB Amos 4:1 - Hear this word, you cows of Bashan who are on the mountain of Samaria] Biblical commentary on Amos 4: "You cows of Bashan: Amos wasn’t trained as a prophet, he was a simple herdsman and farmer. When he wanted to get the point across to the indulgent women of Israel, he called them fat cows."[http://www.enduringword.com/commentaries/3004.htm] Titus 1:12: "One of themselves, a prophet of their own, said, "Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons." If you think I am going to let a egotist suck up my time for no good reason, think again. By the way, it is funny and awfully convenient that you suddenly find the material to be offensive now. Please grow up. You wonder why I don't want to communicate with you. It is undisciplined and petty outbursts like this that is one of the prime reasons. I have zero trust in your integrity. I also think you have little reluctance to try to stab others in the back if it strikes your fancy. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:08, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
::This is nonsense. What evidence is there the "the indulgent women of Israel" were Atheists? And please refrain from incivility and personal attacks. Thank you. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 11:54, 30 July 2011 (EDT)
:::A factual error has been pointed out many times over, by me as well as others. The study does not mention atheists nor does the study mention obesity - there is no factual connection between Atheism and Obesity. That is an error. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 16:39, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::How did I misrepresent a study. I didn't. If you are going to post on the talk page, please post something worthwhile. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:49, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::The study does not mention atheism nor obesity. The study shows no link between the two. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 16:54, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::: Hasn't Mr. Schlafly addressed this before and said that the link between atheism and obesity should not be censored? --[[User:BradleyS|BradleyS]] 17:08, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::Conservative asked about a factual error and I pointed one out. Who mentioned Andy or censorship? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:10, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::: Rob mentioned this material as being "offensive". What's offensive about a fact? And why say that unless you want to censor? --[[User:BradleyS|BradleyS]] 17:25, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::What fact? This who page is based on a Gallup study that mentions neither obesity or atheism. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:26, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
Max, this isn't rocket science. I provided commentary on the Gallup study in the article. You either need to read better, express yourself better or be more honest. I hope it's not the latter. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:33, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
:Your commentary does not match what the study says - your commentary is factually in error. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:35, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
:::Max, I suggest getting a new optometrist. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:03, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
::::All the study says is that more religious people choose healthier diets. There is nothing about Atheism nor Obesity in the study. You leapt to that conclusion on your own and it is factually unsupported by the study. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 20:11, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::RobS, grow up. I merely pointed out above that the Bible does talk about obesity/gluttony in populations. I think the more you hang out with atheist buddies and try to court them with this type of bootlicking to curry their favor, the more you are going to find facts to be offensive. I am going to have to agree with BradleyS's comment above. I also continue to believe your timing is awfully convenient in terms of your petulant complaint and this is merely a petty and spurious attempt at payback. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 12:12, 30 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::*''The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold a [[gluttony|glutton]], and a winebibber, a friend of publicans<ref>publicans were [[collaborator]]s with the enemy, Jews who collected taxes from Jews to support the Roman occupation troops.</ref> and sinners. But wisdom is justified of her children.'' (Matt 11:19) [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 12:20, 30 July 2011 (EDT)
{{reflist}}
RobS, I know you are spoiling for fight with me at this time, but I am not going to cooperate and be drawn into senseless contention. I also suggest if you truly want to make some positive changes to Conservapedia that you engage in less factious and unwarranted behavior. Based on recent communications to me, you are going to find it much more difficult to gain the cooperation of your fellow Conservapedians if you continue down your present path. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:00, 30 July 2011 (EDT)
:You know, you don't have to respond to every post you're name is mentioned. See [[Last wordism]]. Also, please do not presume to telepathically understand other's motives, or impugn other's motives with your imagination. It can be misconstrued as incivility. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:24, 30 July 2011 (EDT)
::What "senseless contention" are you referring to? It's certainly not people calling to your attention the several unsupported arguments you make in these hitpieces. You've failed to carry your burden that there's even a correlation between atheism and obesity, yet you continue hectoring and sneering at these people. Why is that? That's not what I would call openmindedness or cooperation. [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 14:29, 30 July 2011 (EDT)
===factual===
:User:conservative you keep insisting that this material is factual and ignoring what everybody else is saying about it. But whether or not it's "factual" isn't the point, and it's rather disingenuous of you to keep insisting that it is.
:Do you make fun of the handicapped? Because it would be "factual," wouldn't it, to call a person with disabilities a cripple. Lots of things are factual, but here people are expressing concern over your apparent need to mock and degrade. What is it that you are trying to prove with these "facts?" You do know that there are overweight Christians and physically fit atheists, don't you? It seems to everybody that you are only pointing and saying "HaHa! You're fat."--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 15:33, 30 July 2011 (EDT)
::CamilleT, if you feel strongly about this matter, I think you should contact your elected representatives and ask them to include being overweight as a disability. Perhaps, you could get some equal access laws passed too requiring: extra wide doorways, extra wide seating in all public transit and heavy duty shock absorbers installed in all taxis. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:57, 30 July 2011 (EDT)
:::I not sure why I'm trying again, but come on, Conservative. What exactly is your goal behind these articles where you're equating fat people with atheists and gays and I can't remember what else? These article don't appear to express any true concern about overweight people and our very real issues; instead, it appears as though we're just convenient whipping boys. We're one of the few remaining subgroups in society that are considered fair game without our denigrators becoming social pariahs. Your writings reflect many of the typical attitudes people display toward fat people - we're supposed to accept any and all insults, fat jokes and negative stereotypes because I guess it's assumed we're not "real" people with "real" feelings. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 23:59, 30 July 2011 (EDT)
::::The article provides data relating to atheism and obesity and related matters. It also provides some helpful information. I don't see the point of repeating myself. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:30, 1 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::You are wasting your time Sharon. Conservative has shown himself to be entirely impervious to either logical argument or to any appeal to civility or empathy. He is determined to plough ahead with these disgraceful articles which bring this site into disrepute. In spite of his name he is clearly no real conservative. --[[User:CharlesDN|CharlesDN]] 00:07, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::Charles, as far as your empathy comment, have you read Conservapedia's article [[Atheism and uncharitableness]] and [[Atheism and mass murder]] articles? [[Atheist Population|Atheists as a population]] are not known for their empathy. Perhaps, if some atheists weren't so busy engaging in their costly habit of [[gluttony]], they would have more money to donate to others. Plus, the greater the aggregate world demand for food, the higher the price of food so [[Atheism and obesity|obese atheists]] are not making things easy for people having difficulty with rising food prices. Now I realize there are people with legitimate medical reasons for being overweight such a thyroid problems, but I have to agree with this article as a whole: [[Chuck Norris on the topic of obesity]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:28, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::So... because atheists are not empathetic it is ok for your not to be empathetic? Hmm. I think you had better re-examine your "conservative" values. Furthermore, it has been pointed out to you on multiple occasions that your Gallup poll does not mention either atheists or obesity. On every occasion you have utterly failed to explain how your article is supported by that poll. I suggest that you consider removing your atheist/fatties "articles". Finally, I really don't care what Chuck Norris has to say on any topic outside of acting. --[[User:CharlesDN|CharlesDN]] 00:35, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::I have mentioned many times over Conservative, '''there is no mention of atheism or obesity in the gallup study'''. It is an error you have yet to address aside from deflection. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 00:37, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::Interesting. I had not bothered to question the actual data, rather its presentation and its implications, but with this it seems User:conservative is wrong on every single level. Go on, deflect away, conservative.--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 19:46, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::::::Whining, kvetching and pretending will not make the Gallup study cease to mention the very religious nor will it remove the non-Gallup data I offered. As far as the Gallup data and the non-religious and its relevance, each person has to decide for themselves how similar non-religious people are to atheists in terms of health habits unless there is data I am not aware of that compares the two. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wL9ZleOXzQ0 This song] reminds me of many whiners and pretenders concerning this article.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:14, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::Show me where in the essay your "non-Gallup" data supports a correlation between atheism and obesity. Show me where the Gallup poll supports the specific conclusion that atheists are obese. Walk me and everyone who thinks you're dead wrong though this. Apparently none of us is as good a reader as you are. [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 21:28, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::::::::I presented 25 written pages of data and content relating to atheism and obesity. I am very content to let readers decide its relevance. Please feel free to offer more prominent overweight atheist to be included. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:10, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::::But what is it based on? Because the Gallup study '''does not''' support the conclusion. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:13, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::::::I am thinking of adding [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZDs88uWKrk&feature=relmfu HappyCabbie] as an example of a overweight YouTube atheist. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:15, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::::::::::::If someone is looking for a list of overweight atheists on the internet this article is easily found.[http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy&hl=en&source=hp&q=list+of+overweight+atheists&pbx=1&oq=list+of+overweight+atheists&aq=f&aqi=&aql=1&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=2887l12923l0l13407l29l24l1l8l8l0l350l3232l0.11.5.1l17l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=661c0b1152c259b4&biw=1024&bih=514][http://www.bing.com/search?q=list+of+overweight+atheists&form=MOZSBR&pc=MOZI][http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=list+of+overweight+atheists&ei=UTF-8&fr=moz35] :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:38, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::::::::::::::::I don't understand Conservative, you have never answered the most basic of questions and I am rather bewildered. The Gallup study never mentions atheism or obesity and obesity affects nearly half of all US citizens yet you yourself state atheist are in the extreme minority (1.9% if I remember correctly). Please help me understand where you are drawing your conclusions from. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:42, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::::::::::::::::::So, all your information comes from a few online atheists? Without statistics, you have nothing. Should I add that I, who does not believe in any deities or supernatural forces, am not fat? Where does that leave your careful analysis? Or are you just cherry picking? Because I can name overweight Christians pretty easily too (off the top of my head: Bill Donahue, John Hagee and his son; Jack Chick is pretty burly looking; various self-professed Christians not involved in preaching such as Joe Barton, Newt Gingrich, Michael Steele, and the late Jerry Fallwell).--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 22:49, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
"Conservative", answer two simple and direct questions simply and directly. No more of your deflection. Show me where in the essay your "non-Gallup" data supports a correlation between atheism and obesity. Show me where the Gallup poll supports the specific conclusion that atheists are obese. I'll give you a hint, and this time I'm flat out calling you a liar if you give another ridiculous non-response: it's not in there. Your campaign to slander your opponents however childishly and dishonestly you can is casting this website in disrepute. For one of the few times in a year I did a google search for Conservapedia and specifically the rubbish you call articles. You in particular get overwhelmingly negative attention, even from Christians and conservatives. Please desist before you bring more shame to our doorstep. [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 23:18, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
== Via several weird redirected talk pages... ==
Ken, you realize the reason Penn won't debate you is that he suspects you are a parodist ''extraordinaire'', right? It's not because he is a bunny, or a burning building, it's because he thinks you edit here to discredit CP. Can you write an essay that proves this wrong?
Best regards,
Huw [[User:Human|Human]] 02:57, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
:::[[Essay: This year's best atheist debaters]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 07:17, 4 August 2011 (EDT)
:Could you give us an example where you, Conservative, debated someone about Atheism, Evolution, etc.? On the talk-pages I've seen so far you havn't won any ''discussion''...
:[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 08:54, 4 August 2011 (EDT)
:::RonLar, I think you are an [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2eMkth8FWno atheist/evolutionist black knight] and can safely be ignored. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:39, 4 August 2011 (EDT)
::This is a prime example of another argument you just lost:A You won't win any debate by just ignoring your opponents: it's like your [[Question evolution! campaign]] in Texas - what good does it do ''contact Texas churches'', that's not where the atheists you are trying to convert hang out!
::[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 09:47, 4 August 2011 (EDT)
::To explain the above in detail: if there were some example of a discussion on a talk page where you, Conservative, have successfully debated an atheist/Darwinist/Evolutionist, you would have no problem to link to it. The fact that you don't do so, but instead choose an [[ad hominem]] as an answer implies that
::- there isn't such a discussion or
::- if there is, you have lost.
::And that's why you were able to lose this simple argument in two sentences - congratulations!
::[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 09:53, 4 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::I find it interesting that members of a certain atheist website incessantly whine about this article. Is there any leader or are there any leaders of that atheist website who could easily shed some poundage? The reason I mention this is that generally speaking the stuck pig squeals the loudest. :) I do know that a significant percentage of the leaders of the [[New Atheism]] movement had problems with being overweight (see: [[New Atheism leadership's problem with excess weight]] ). I also know that a number of [[American Atheists]]'s board of directors could benefit by losing some weight as can be seen [http://www.atheists.org/about/Board_of_Directors HERE]. Instead of whining about this article, I do think that some atheists could better spend their time by asking prominent atheist "fat cats" to lose some weight. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 10:25, 5 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::*A stuck pig squeals - whether it was stuck rightfully or not. You know, sometimes the innocent protest, too.
::::::*You didn't answer my question (''Could you give us an example where you, Conservative, debated someone about Atheism, Evolution, etc.?'') but again went on a tangent.
::::::*BTW, is this the way you intent to ''win'' debates: hinting that your opposite is fat - or that he knows some fat people?
::::::*Try to regard our little exchange of comments as a discussion. Reread it. Reflect on it. Could you answer any of the questions? How many valid points have you made? (The answer is '''none''')
::::::[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 11:40, 5 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::: *cough* I am a Christian conservative, and I must say that this discussion has made me curious. Conservative, why aren't you just giving this guy examples of debates you've won if you have them? I mean, I don't ''want'' you to be wrong or anything, but this is just confusing, and frankly, this discussion has almost proven to me that RonLar is right and not you, Conservative. ''Why not just release whatever debates you have?'' And RonLar DOES have a fine, perfectly fair question. All he wants is an example of where you debated someone about Atheism, Evolution, or a related topic. That request shouldn't be too hard to fulfill. Even if he is an atheist, that doesn't make his question less valid. --[[User:StoryMaker|StoryMaker]] 17:18, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::StoryMaker, I will let readers decide if you are a bona fide Christian conservative. Personally, I am skeptical. Next, this talk page is for the [[atheism and obesity]] article. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:22, 19 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::Ah, an ''ad hominem'', again. And still - after a month - the question ''Could you give us an example where you, Conservative, (successfully) debated someone about Atheism, Evolution, etc.?'' is unanswered, or, to be more precise, it is implicitly answered '''no'''... [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 09:22, 15 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::Ron, what would you call a "successful" debate? It seems to me that debates rarely finish with one party saying "I was wrong, you have changed my mind", no matter how comprehensively they are out-argued, so perhaps it is unfair to ask Conservative to produce such an example. (This is particularly true online, where obstinacy abounds.) In my view, a truly "successful" debate is one containing absorbing dialog that advances or deepens the understanding of all parties - and examples of these can be found all over Conservapedia talk pages.
:::::::::Perhaps now you could take this case as closed and move on to another issue?--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:58, 15 September 2011 (EDT)
== Nominate for deletion ==
I'd like to propose that this article should be deleted; we could use a shortened version as a section of the "Atheism and health" article. It's just not solid enough to be a standalone article, and frankly it also lets atheists accuse Conservapedia of relying on ad hominems. Are we trying to provide a valuable educational resource or just insult atheists? Some people are far too quick to label atheists as malevolent, insane or abnormal. Well, most of them aren't; they're simply people who don't believe in God and they're generally well educated and intelligent. Some of them are going to take us seriously if we can present good, reasoned arguments. However if the best we can do is to call them fat bum bandits they're just going to laugh at us and so, I'm afraid to say, based on conversations I've had with friends from church about what I've been trying to do here, are a lot of Christians. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 19:28, 13 September 2011 (EDT)
:::SamCoulter, before your suggestion is given merit, I think you need to do a better job at refuting the data in the article plus show that atheist community has adequately addressed their sin problem and the problems sin is causing within their community. By the way SamCoulter, what does the Bible say about atheists and what does the Bible say about fools? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:00, 13 September 2011 (EDT)
::::As has been pointed out on numerous occasions the data in the article mentions neither atheism nor obesity. As for the atheist community's sin problem, if there IS an atheist community sin isn't a concept that will have any meaning to it so they're not going to see a problem. Sin is going against God's law, so the issue of atheists and their attitude to sin can be fairly easily deduced from that. I know what the bible says about atheists and I know what it says about fools - essentially that they're the same thing - but what do atehists care about what the bible says? They don't care if it says that they're fools and I do believe it's their minds that we should be trying to change here. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 20:12, 13 September 2011 (EDT)
===An idea===
Why don't we have a vote on whether this should remain an article of be moved to essay? We'd have disqualify users who haven't been here awhile to stop vandals and the like swinging the vote. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 20:24, 13 September 2011 (EDT)
:I'm happy to be excluded from that vote because I've only been here a month or so, but I think it's an excellent idea. As an essay, a personal opinion, it's perfectly reasonable. As an encyclopaedia article? Not so much. Conservapedia has massive potential - and I'll say right now that User:Conservative has been quite helpful to me in my efforts to improve it - but this article WOULD be better as an essay. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 21:37, 13 September 2011 (EDT)
Max, before you invoke [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5XqZjAybWXk mob rule], why don't you point to a single factual error in the article first? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:08, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
:Firstly I was explicitly against mob rule by stating it should only be trusted user to vote. Second: ''why don't you point to a single factual error in the article first?''....I have! You have ignored it time and time again! The entire page is predicated on a survey '''that doesn't mention atheism or obesity!''' That, sir, is a factual error! [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 01:18, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
::I have tried having this conversation with you many times - look at some of my comments above '''the Gallup study does not support the conclusion'''. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 01:19, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
::::Max, there is a number of bodies of evidence (some of them very corpulent) that I presented in the 24 pages of material for this article. :) Stop using the [[fallacy of exclusion]] and deal with the entire WEIGHT of evidence that the atheist community has problems with obesity within their community. :) By the way, I do find it telling that you cannot find a single factual error in the 24 page article. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:23, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::Stop moving the goalposts Conservative. You asked me to find a single error and I have found a single error. It is not a fallacy of exclusion, you asked and I answered. The Gallup Study '''does not''' support your conclusion. That is a single error and that is all you asked me point out. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 01:29, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
Max, we both know you found nothing. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:36, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
:Conservative, can you not find ''anything'' positive to write about regarding fat people? You've worked hard to tie us to atheists, homosexuals, lesbians, evolutionists, feminists and Alzheimer's (that I know of), but nothing that a conservative Christian would consider good. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 02:03, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
::::Sharon, the topic of the article is [[Atheism and obesity]]. The question you pose is beyond the scope of the article. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:08, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::Pardon my confusion about the topic, because this article meanders from '''obesity''' to fat homosexuals to '''neurotic fat people who must be atheists because they obviously have mental and emotional issues''', to various '''"nanner-nanner, you're fat" sections on atheists''', to Chuck Norris talking about the internet, '''to internet atheism, to more "nanner-nanner, you're fat" sections''', back to fat homosexuals, then to fat lesbians, to chubby homosexuals, to fat evolutionists, '''back to neurotic, depressed fat people must be atheists''', to fat people can't get married, to physical ailments fat people get, to fat Alzheimer's patients, to fat people believing in UFOs because they lack self-discipline, to more UFO stuff (seriously, ''UFOs''?), to giving statistics about the growth of Christianity, to Chuck Norris saying fat people are horrid,''' to overcoming obesity by being a Christian, and finally to a list of pages making fun of fat atheists'''. The way I see it, the bolded sections are the only ones with a tenuous connection to the title of this article.
:::::But I believe you answered my question anyway, so I thank you for that. It's really too bad you can't find ''any'' good in people with weight issues. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 11:36, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::I think a lot of Conservative's articles are made to be thought-provoking - to ask you to think about things you might not normally consider. [[User:Taj|Taj]] 12:20, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::Well, I agree this ''started'' as thought provoking but when finding out that the very source the entire thrust of this article hangs on neither mentions obesity or atheism it stops become thought provoking and becomes fallacious. When this is then pointed out to the author who completely ignores it it becomes an embarrassment. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 16:50, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::::Max, when are you going to show 3 things: 1) The entire thrust of the article hangs on the Gallup study. 2) It is wrong to provide data on the very religious 3) There is a marked difference between the non-religious and atheists (I leave this question up to the readers). Seeing as the article has over 20 pages of material with various bodies of data, I think #1 is impossible for you to maintain. On the other hand, being in clear error has never stopped you before. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:00, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::How many surveys in this article draw a relation between physical health and religious beliefs? I can only see one - the Gallup Study. Hence the entire premise, that atheism and obesity are somehow correlated, hang on the Gallup study. I am happy to be proven wrong. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:13, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::Please show me where I have been "in clear error" before and I will happily apologise for it. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:15, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
Max, you need help that I cannot provide and I suggest going to a optometrist. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:36, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
:Since you cannot show me another study, in this article, relating to health and religiosity, then I will stand by my original comments. I will gladly apologise if wrong but at this stage there is a critical flaw in the article. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:45, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
==it must be a joke==
Come on, this article is just nonsense, I clearly suspect Conservative to be a parodist. You cannot just list fifty fat atheist and say that ALL atheists are fat, that's just WRONG! I can easily find 50 fit ahteist and conclude that ALL atheists are fit ! Another interesting fact should be to compare obesity rate in Europe and America and then to compare atheism in Europe and America. More atheists in Europe but more obeses in America ? What should I conclude here ? --[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 01:16, 15 September 2011 (EDT)
:::Where does the article say all atheists are fat? Secondly, comparing apples to apples is more scientific such as comparing very religious European people to European atheists. You can also do statistical analysis to measure particular variables. I suggest taking remedial reading classes plus taking a few courses in statistics.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:21, 15 September 2011 (EDT)
::::Obesity by states: [http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/trends.html]. Intersting to see that more religious states are those with the more obese people. Conclusion: either religious people are fatter, either atheists living with religious people get fatter than atheists living with atheists. Another study arguing for fatter christians: [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42256829/ns/health-diet_and_nutrition/#.TnJ9RuzDGZ8]. Personnaly I believe that you can be fat or fit whether you are a christian, an atheist, a buddhist or whatever you want.--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 18:35, 15 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::ARamis, the Feinstein study you linked to only showed a correlation between obesity and how religious people were AS YOUNG ADULTS; he didn't check how religious the obese subjects are NOW. Nevertheless as far as its conclusions go it seems valid and it's one more reason why this article should be deleted. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 12:23, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
::That would be great for you if we lived world with one or two variables. Unfortunately for you, we don't. I am used to atheists not understanding statistics and science so I am not upset. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:39, 15 September 2011 (EDT)
:::Oh Conservative, please explain to me where I failed, please excuse my pride for daring oppose the Conservapedia "facts". Please provide your statistical data (where is it?) that would open my eyes to the Truth.--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 18:56, 15 September 2011 (EDT)
::::ARamis, you do have a pride issue as demonstrated by your lack of apology for incorrectly declaring the article supposedly said all atheist are fat. I see no point in having a discussion with someone who is reluctant to graciously admit error. Second, my post above dealt with your obesity by states "argument". I see now you posted a link the MSNBC article. Third, the NorthWestern study was already discussed (see above). I have nothing further to add on this point. Lastly, I think its pointless to have discussions with atheists on this matter who refuse to tackle the article in a more comprehensive manner as I see it as merely engaging in [[fallacy of exclusion]] "reasoning". [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:31, 15 September 2011 (EDT)