Changes

This page is guilty of a major logical fallacy, that is, the ad hominem abusive [http://www.conservapedia.com/Logical_fallacies#Ad_hominem_abusive]. If you don't wish to follow the link and read up, it basically means that pointing out some negative aspect of a person or group that holds a particular belief does not change the truth or falsehood of that belief, as long as the negative aspect is unrelated to the issue at stake. The belief must stand or fall on its own. Even assuming EVERY atheist is obese, this has no impact on the veracity of their belief. It is pointed out that atheists are obese because they ignore nutritive science. However, nutritive science and theology are utterly separate fields - one's adherence or non adherence to nutritive science has no bearing on one's belief in the existence or non existence of God (or a god) --[[User:Swinefish|Swinefish]] 08:47, 3 November 2011 (EDT)

This page is guilty of a major logical fallacy, that is, the ad hominem abusive [http://www.conservapedia.com/Logical_fallacies#Ad_hominem_abusive]. If you don't wish to follow the link and read up, it basically means that pointing out some negative aspect of a person or group that holds a particular belief does not change the truth or falsehood of that belief, as long as the negative aspect is unrelated to the issue at stake. The belief must stand or fall on its own. Even assuming EVERY atheist is obese, this has no impact on the veracity of their belief. It is pointed out that atheists are obese because they ignore nutritive science. However, nutritive science and theology are utterly separate fields - one's adherence or non adherence to nutritive science has no bearing on one's belief in the existence or non existence of God (or a god) --[[User:Swinefish|Swinefish]] 08:47, 3 November 2011 (EDT)

:::I have never seen the fallacy described as applying to a group.  I think you are changing the definition of this fallacy. Second, the article doesn't claim that the existence of overweight atheists means that God exists. If it had, you would certainly have pointed that out.  The issue of a segment of the atheist community ignoring nutritional science, exercise science and medical science seems to upset you. By the way, if memory serves, if you had read the talk page more carefully, I believe this issue was already covered. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:25, 3 November 2011 (EDT)

:::I have never seen the fallacy described as applying to a group.  I think you are changing the definition of this fallacy. Second, the article doesn't claim that the existence of overweight atheists means that God exists. If it had, you would certainly have pointed that out.  The issue of a segment of the atheist community ignoring nutritional science, exercise science and medical science seems to upset you. By the way, if memory serves, if you had read the talk page more carefully, I believe this issue was already covered. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:25, 3 November 2011 (EDT)

:::By the way, I believe the amount of atheist obesity in many societies will decrease as there will be less atheists.  I suggest reading: [[Essay: Will American atheism be cut by at least 50%?]].  [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:38, 3 November 2011 (EDT)

:::::By the way, I believe the amount of atheist obesity in many societies will decrease as there will be less atheists.  I suggest reading: [[Essay: Will American atheism be cut by at least 50%?]].  [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:38, 3 November 2011 (EDT)