Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Atheism and obesity

2015-03-19T20:13:04Z

Tomqua: /* Medical opinion */

==Opinion from a Christian==
After skimming through these discussions, I can't believe the arguments going on and which are not going on. I enjoy conservapedia, and always check for an
article here first, and go to Wikipedia if I cannot find it here. I was telling my friend at work (She's a Christian female also) two days ago about this site as a great
Wikipedia alternative in response to a question she had, and was rudely interrupted by another of our coworkers (this ones NOT a Christian, he's a liberal smart
aleck immature boy in his 20s) who shouted "Conservapedia? HAH have you seen their page calling non-christians fat? Not sure if that's going to pass as a
Scholarly source" or something similar to that. He then pulled up this page and started reading it out loud. I have never been so embarrassed in my life. Fat jokes?
I skimmed and found the main argument on this page concerning studies and whether it's true or not, but do I really have to explain this?

It doesn't matter whether or not it's true, because considering the number of people in both groups (millions of Christians! Even atheists I'm sure are 100,000 in the
US. There are going to be a whole lot of obese Christians, thin Christians, obese atheists, and thin atheists. The immature kid at my work is thinner than I am,
which is natural considering the sample sizes involved. Even if it's true, that means that in real life situations the reverse will happen (the atheist coworker would be
fatter than me) slightly more often. Well in case the person or persons who made this page are so out of touch from Christians in the real world, it makes us seem
petty and childish calling the fat guy fat! And in the 40% or whatever times that the Christian is fatter than the atheist (my situation at work), it makes us seem
petty, childish, and just wrong because the fat girl is calling the skinny guy fat ! What purpose is this page supposed to serve other than being embarrassing?

I'll spell this out even simpler: two situations. Situation 1: Fat atheist, the article seems true, and the fat atheist gets sympathy bc Christians are making fun of his
weight. Situation 2: Skinny atheist, and Christians putting forth this site as a better alternative to Wikipedia looks delusional.

Until this filth is removed i will most certainly not be putting my personal recommendation (and by extension, reputation) to this site. So angry, it feels like my son
back in middle school when I'd get calls from his teacher and I'd have to apologize for his behaving like 2 year old in class. NOT Christian-like and NOT helpful -Patty

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)
:JamesTimmons, why didn't you cite the journal articles and other relevant data in the article. That should have put the matter to rest. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 04:21, 15 June 2014 (EDT)
:::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- http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42256829/ns/health-diet_and_nutrition/ 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)
:And addition reason occurred to me why the NorthWestern U study is suspect and why the abundant data I cited in the article is a more accurate picture of the current state of affairs. It appears that they picked poor inner city churches in the USA. Research indicates that a lower socioeconomic status is related to higher rates of obesity.[http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism_and_obesity#cite_note-60] Therefore, the overall culture/practices of those churches would tend to be more prone to obesity inducing practices (donuts after church instead of a yuppie, suburban church juice bar; fatty foods at frequent church gatherings, etc. etc. Please see the very relevant [http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/4490719-460/religion-and-obesity-study-links-church-and-being-fat.html comments of Courtney Parker above] related to church gatherings in his particular city. So even if the researchers tried to use regression analysis to limit the effect of an individual's socioeconomic status as far as the overall analysis, the overall cultural practices of the inner city churches they seemed to predominantly pick would still creep in.

:Plus, most Christians are not in the Western World and quite slim plus I cited a wealth of other data such as researchers finding that religious faith increases a person's amount of self-control, the Gallup data, religious people living longer, etc. etc. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:40, 24 August 2014 (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 instead 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)
::MaxFlethcher, what makes you think that the [[User: Conservative]] account is edited by merely one person? No true skeptic believes this. Second, you provided no evidence that this article is an attack on atheism. Obesity is an important societal problem in the Western World and in many other parts of the world. This article provides data that help people better understand the issue of [[Atheism and obesity]] and it cites data from a wide variety of relevant sources. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 04:13, 15 June 2014 (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)
Sharon, thank you. This article pains me, as an overweight, hard-working Christian. Attacking people for their appearance and body type is to me a lot more of an atheistic, MTV generation behavior. I'm very disturbed to see such superficial bullying (using much less solid evidence) coming from our camp. Judge people by their works and their words and not by their bodies.[[User:KingHanksley|KingHanksley]] 16:06, 14 December 2011 (EST)

==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)
::NateK, given your comment about wanting to punch someone in the nose (someone trained in a martial art who you couldn't hit in the nose if you wanted to), you are hardly in a position to lecture on decorum! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 05:08, 15 June 2014 (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)

:Setting aside whether or not [[Penn Jillette]] offered a good reason, is this often correct?: J. P. Morgan: " A man always has two reasons for doing anything: a good reason and the real reason." The reason I ask is due to this: [[Sye Ten Bruggencate's debate challenge to atheist Penn Jillette]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:26, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
:::[[Essay: This year's best atheist debaters]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 07:17, 4 August 2011 (EDT)

::Was this comment placed here by accident?
::*It doesn't have to do anything with the comment above.
::*User:Human is blocked indefinitely, so he won't answer timely.
::*Traditionally, new stuff goes to the end of a thread...
::[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 01:25, 19 September 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)

My previous comment seemed to be not civil enough, so I try to rephrase my statement: I'm well aware that ''successfully'' is a quite ambiguous term, and I don't want to put to much into it. On various occasions has User:Conservative expressed his desire to debate atheists and/or evolutionist like [[Richard Dawkins]] and [[Penn Jillette]]. He (or even she!) chooses not to bolster his stature by citing any off-site activity or qualification, so the seriousness of his challenges can only be measured by his contributions to this site.

He has created ample content. But the talk pages give you a perfect arena for an actual debate (especially as User:Conservative seems to have a virtual event in mind when he ushers his challenges). So, what is more natural then to look for a discussion on these talk pages to see how good a debater User:Conservative is? As I couldn't find an example of such a discussion where User:Conservative faired well, I asked him to provide me with such an example, i.e., his best shot(s) on these debate grounds.

An impressive amount of such debates would help to take User:Conservative's challenges more serious. But unfortunately User:Conservative hasn't provided me with a link yet.

Thanks, [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 14:18, 16 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 in terms of isolating the variable of religiousness/atheistic. For example, 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)
Conservative, I want to apology for my agressive behavior last week. I would be glad if we could start this over. I understand that this article does not state that all atheists are fat but it clearly imply that being an atheist give you more chance to being obese. Can you please tell me why you think we cannot compare religion and diet between different countries ?--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 19:42, 18 September 2011 (EDT)

== Some observations ==

I know that this hardly counts as a scientific study, but out of interest I went through the list of speakers at The Amazing Meeting 9, a sceptical and atheist event that was held in Las Vegas in July, and checked photos of all the speakers. To reduce the variables as much as possible I considered only American speakers, of whom there were 36. Of these, FOUR (PZ Myers, Pamela Gay, Heidi Anderson and Maria Walters) appeared to be seriously overweight or obese, and Pamela Gay is not an atheist. As a third of US adults are obese this (admittedly crude) study suggests that it is not a problem linked in any significant way to atheism. If anybody can suggest a way to look at this in more detail I'd be happy to do what I can. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 12:34, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
:::SamCoulter, for the sake of discussion lets assume that is true. With that being said, it depends on who you are comparing contemporary American atheists to. Are you comparing them to Jesus? Are you comparing the founders of the New Atheism movement to the American general public (3 out of 5 of the founders of the New Atheism movement have had problems with being overweight)? Are you comparing them to the very religious? Are you comparing them to the the bulk of Christianity which is in the non-Western World? Are you comparing them to Moses who certainly had a lot to say about diet? In any event, atheists say they believe in science and we know what science says about obesity (medical science, nutritional science and exercise science). Certainly a group of prominent atheists being prominent in the waist is an embarrassment especially since many atheists claim two things: atheism is in accordance with good science and theism is not and atheists are intellectually superior. BY the way, given that being overweight/obese is a causal factor for brain impairment, an overeweight/obese atheist claiming intellectual superiority is problematic. Lastly, since some atheists probably believe that society is evolving upward, contemporary American atheists being more overweight than mankind was in general earlier is problematic as well. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:28, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
::::No, atheists say that they DON'T believe in God. The majority of them certainly are attached to the scientific method, but then again so are the majority of western Christians. I don't think we help ourselves by misrepresenting what atheists believe. For the record I am comparing prominent American atheists to the US population in general, and it doesn't look like they're any more prone to obesity. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 13:39, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::Sam, you didn't adequately respond to my posts that atheism is more than merely not believing in God which I thought was very shoddy. Second, I cite: "Social Darwinism claims that society is evolving upward from our primitive beginnings to the point where we reach a state of utopia."[http://mnorthernlights.blogspot.com/2009/01/darwin-day-2009.html] Certainly, highly religious Bible believers do not believe in social Darwinism so time periods of atheists getting plumper are not problematic to biblical Christianity. Also, how attached are overweight/obese atheists to the scientific method? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:50, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::Atheists say that's what atheism is, and the difference between not believing in gods and denying the existence of gods is in any case more semantic than anything else: Me: "Do you deny the existence of God?" Atheist: "Yes." Me: "Why?" Atheist: "Because I don't believe in gods." Social Darwinism has nothing to do with the theory of evolution and claiming that it does just gives evolutionists an opening to attack your credibility. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 14:00, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
::Do atheists say what atheism is or do encyclopedias of philosophy? If someone says they are Napolean is he? Why is the definition more semantic than anything else and how does it affect the burden of proof as far as the existence of God? Next, where did I say Social Darwinism is the exactly the same as macroevolution? The more I interact with you and you fail to adequately respond to my questions and the material I post to you, the less worthwhile I am finding it to respond to you. Don't be surprised if I cease to respond to you. Perhaps, you should consider adequately responding to the backlog of questions I have posed to you and more adequately respond to what I have posted to you. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 14:11, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
:::My opinion is that atheists get to say what it is. Your opinion is clearly different; fine, that's your right. However if someone says "I'm an atheist," and you say "Then according to my encyclopaedia of philosophy you believe X" and he replies "Well, I don't," what does that mean? That he's lying, that he's not an atheist or that your encyclopaedia is wrong? Secondly, I never claimed that you DID say social Darwinism is exactly the same as macroevolution; I just pointed out that it has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with evolutionary theory, because it doesn't. Finally, we seem to have a different perception on whether or not I've adequately responded to your questions and again that is your right, but it's also mine. No offence, but there are some questions - such as why is this article based on a study that talks about neither atheism nor obesity - that you haven't answered too well yourself. I am NOT trying to get into a fight with you or anyone else here; I am trying to expand Conservapedia into a valuable educational resource that will turn people away from atheism and evolutionism, as are you. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 14:28, 16 September 2011 (EDT)

== Challenge for User:Conservative ==

''BY the way, given that obesity is a causal factor for brain impairment, an obese atheist claiming intellectual superiority is problematic.'' quote by [[User:Conservative]]

So now you claim there are no smart fat people. Wow, just... wow.

70 to 76% of Americans self-identify as Christian. 2-5% of Americans self-identify as atheists. 33.8% of Americans are overweight/obese. There is obviously a much greater problem within the Christian community than in the atheist community, by sheer numbers alone, yet Conservapedia turns a blind eye to this issue. It also ignores "normal weight obesity", where skinny people can be fatties without even knowing it.

You keep challenging people to debate you on atheism. Well, I'm not an atheist, and I don't know much about that subject, but I ''am'' overweight. I'm challenging you to a debate about how horribly Conservapedia treats obese people in their articles. Simple rules - written responses with one post (no edits); the topic is '''''just obesity''''', not atheism, homosexuality, evolutionism, feminism, etc. and so forth (I can't remember all the labels you've tried to slap on fat people); answers due the last Saturday of October. You can pick the moderator.

Or I'll post my phone number and you can tell me in person why you '''''flat-out ignore''''' the fat Christians or the fat creationists or the fat heterosexuals or all of the intelligent, talented , good, nice fat people who live in this country in your diatribes. I'll pay for the phone call. Whichever one you want to choose is fine with me. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 14:08, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
::::Sharon, where did a claim that there are no smart/talented/etc. overweight/obese people? I didn't and I don't think it is fair for you to misrepresent what I have written. For example, certainly it is possible in some cases for someone starting with an IQ of 200 to suffer brain impairment, yet still be smart. In terms of "intellectual superiority", it all depends on who you are comparing a person to. Plus, we really don't to what degree many health related weight problems are so Conservapedia offering material on the affects of excess weight plus various solutions for many people's problems with being overweight is a public service. I do know that in many cases the health effects of being overweight in terms of symptoms can be reversed to a large degree via weight loss. Also, given that many maladies are progressive in terms of their effects, it is better for people to be educated on the effects of being overweight sooner rather than later. Next, given that I cite responsible sources for my articles in terms of their claims such as medical journals citing research, etc., I see no reason to debate you. If you had claimed that specific statements in my articles were wrong and attempted to offer evidence to the contrary that might be different, but this is not the case plus I have used responsible sources for my articles such as medical journals citing research, etc. Lastly, thanks for the offer to have a phone discussion, but I think I will decline at this time. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 14:57, 16 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::::No, you haven't actually ''written'' the words that there are no smart/talented/etc. overweight/obese people, you have simply ''implied'' it. Reread the quote at the top of this section. Look at the articles you've written that associate obesity with things that you don't believe in. Look at the articles you've '''''not''''' written about obesity - the fact that there is an issue within the Christian community; that it's an issue among heterosexuals, etc.; that there is some debate on whether a person can be overweight and still be healthy; that thin people can also be considered to have "normal weight obesity". I haven't argued about the medical information you've provided - it's the ''application'' of that information that I'm protesting. You use "obese" as a pejorative, and that's not right. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 20:24, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
::::Sharon, I am not going to spend time addressing what I supposedly said "between the lines", implied, etc. If my critics don't want to show me where I made a mistake in what I actually wrote then so be it. Secondly, if you want to open a debate page entitled "Can a person be overweight and still be healthy?" then please be my guest. Given the massive amount of research that has been done on the effects of being overweight by the medical community and the biblical admonitions against overeating, I think you face an uphill battle but if you want to fight this battle with those who disagree with you, then so be it. Also, how can being overweight be an issue within a community as you suggest above, but still be healthy? Over in overweight means too much. If there are no adverse effects to being overweight (unhealthy to be overweight), then are they '''over'''weight? If you want to address the central issue, then I suggest you open the debate page I suggested. If you do open such a debate page, I would suggest you provide counter evidence to each of the sources I used on the effects of being overweight (effect on longevity, effects on brain function, etc. etc. etc. ). I do realize that there are health risks associated with being underweight and that health is more than just BMI/weight and that mortality does not necessarily mean quality of life (joint problems associated with being overweight, impaired brain function, etc.), but I don't think you can show me that any of the information I presented were examples of healthy lifestyles being shown as unhealthy. ([[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:14, 17 September 2011 (EDT)
Sharon, I might have used another Conservapedians claims/source about BMI rather than use my own and a responsible source seems to have been used. If I did use another Conservapedians BMI source, I used a BMI of over 25 as being overweight. Here is something I just read from a 2010 source: "After analyzing data on 1.46 million mostly white, non-Hispanic adults who participated in 19 long-term studies — each designed to follow participants for between 5 to 28 years — researchers determined that, overall, a BMI (or body mass index, a ratio of height and weight that determines overweight and obesity) between 20.0 and 24.9 was associated with the lowest risk of death in healthy non-smoking adults." [http://healthland.time.com/2010/12/03/whats-the-ideal-bmi-for-longevity] The [[Mayo Clinic]] which has a high reputation for giving sound health advice concurs with this figure. [http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/bmi-calculator/NU00597] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:12, 17 September 2011 (EDT)
:::One last thing, this is a volunteer wiki and people can within reason choose the topics of the articles they write on depending on their interests and what they feel the public might be interested in and use such things as the Conservapedia commandments in order to have a good article (cite sources, etc.). If you want to do the requisite amount of research an write good articles on topics such as [[Heterosexuality and obesity]], etc. etc. then be my guest. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:26, 18 September 2011 (EDT)

::::Actually, I'm planning two articles: [[Negative stereotypes in society and obesity]] and [[Christian and weight issues]]. The first is prevelant (see [[atheism and obesity]], with its numerous pictures of atheists, dictators, murderers, etc., and not one person who has a positive reputation with Christians], and the second is actually a greater problem than [[atheism and obesity]], given that Christians are supposed to follow the Bible's teachings, as you've pointed out. I'm sure there are numerous examples for both articles. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 11:50, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::::I did some poking around the internet. If you write the articles, I would suggest not titling an article [[Christian and weight issues]] as it does not seem to be a popular search engine search so people will not find your article. Also, based on Google suggestions, here are some more prevalent searches via the search engines if you want to write on these topics: [[Obesity stereotypes]] and [[Christian weight loss]] and [[Christian weight loss programs]]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:23, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::User:Conservative is right. To maximise viewers, you should either use search-friendly titles such as the ones he suggests, or else create links to your articles from others that will get a lot of search hits (I assume [[Atheism and obesity]] is in this category).--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:00, 19 September 2011 (EDT)

Thank you for the concern about the popularity of my proposed articles, but popularity has never been a driving force in my life.

I was going to write these articles; in fact, the one about 'Christians and weight issues' was completed on my hard-drive within hours of posting my last comment on this talk page, complete with a list of prominent/notable Christians who are overweight/obese. I was (and still am) disgusted and angry about the obesity articles that are here on CP, and CP's policy that it is an acceptable conservative/Christian practice to attack someone's appearance when the real issue is a difference in ideology. After stepping away from this issue for several days to cool down, I realized my proposed articles were exactly the same as CP's articles on obesity, and I won't lower myself to that level.

Over the years, I've dealt with mean-spirited, thoughtless, childish, inconsiderate behavior from people due to weight issues. Sometimes it is unintentional; other times, such as in these articles, it is a deliberate action.

You claim these articles are a "public service" to share information on the dangers of obesity. I say hooey to that. If that were truly the case, there would be the single, main article about [[obesity]] on CP, complete with the important information about the associated health risks, and all of these articles attempting to link obesity with atheism/evolution/homosexuality/lesbianism/feminism, etc. wouldn't exist.

I would have a lot more respect if you just came out and '''admitted''' you are using "obese" as an insult directed toward people you don't like. You know it's true, and so do I. If it wasn't deliberate, you would be willing to talk with me about the situation, as I proposed earlier, and there would be more acknowledgement in CP's articles that obesity is an issue that isn't restricted to those people with whom you disagree, but also with religious people, straight people, creationists, etc. Also, there wouldn't be "fat jokes" like 'how much wax would be needed to create an obese atheist museum' showing up on the talk pages. (By the way – ha, ha. Heaven knows I've never heard a variation of ''that'' joke before.)

Do I expect the situation to change? No. Obesity is a too-easily-applied ''ad hominem'', and it appears there is much enjoyment here on CP in using it. But you should '''''strongly''''' consider arguing the ''issues'' (atheism, homosexuality, feminism, etc. and so forth) instead of taking the easy way out and attacking the person. It's the grown-up thing to do. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 15:28, 22 September 2011 (EDT)

== Might be of interest ==

An interesting comparison of [http://blog.hunch.com/?p=48884 dietary habits]. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:26, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
:That seems like a liberal-run sight trying to make conservatives look unhealthy and unsophisticated. They way it's written appears very deceptive. [[User:RSnelik|RSnelik]] 17:38, 18 September 2011 (EDT)

A lot depends on how you define conservative. Are they for limited government which includes the United States not being the world's policeman? Are they for nation building? Are neoconservatives being counted as conservatives?

For example:
"I have always given it as my decided opinion that no nation has a right to intermeddle in the internal concerns of another; that every one has a right to form and adopt whatever government they liked best to live under themselves; and that if this country could, consistently with its engagements, maintain a strict neutrality and thereby preserve peace, it was bound to do so by motives of policy, interest, and every other consideration. - George Washington, from Letter to James Monroe, August 25,1796.

Also:
"Hence , likewise , they will avoid the necessity of those overgrown military establishments which, under any form of government are inauspicious to liberty, and which are to be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty." - George Washington

Given the size of the U.S. Federal Government deficit and some Republicans having budget deficits, it seems to me as if the "conservatives" who want the United States to have an overgrown military are not doing a lot of deep thinking plus are not very disciplined and would be more given to making poor dietary choices. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:51, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
:::Here is another point: There is no indication that Moses was fat or that kosher diets lead to obesity. Also, the "Kosher Diet is not a weight loss diet per se, but its emphasis on fruits and vegetables, fish and it's lack of...high-fat pork products...can make it an eating plan that supports healthy eating and a healthy relationship to food."[http://www.dietsinreview.com/diets/kosher-diet/] Christianity has arguably had the greatest impact on Western Civilization and Christianity is a very conservative religion that says it is the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies. The Mayo Clinic says that the Mediterranean diet is a healthy diet. [http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/mediterranean-diet/CL00011] Jesus, the carpenter and traveling preacher who was not fat, was the founder of Christianity and he ate a kosher diet probably influenced by the Mediterranean diet. Thus, while Jesus is not a conservative in the 20th century political sense, he definitely was more conservative and slimmer than overweight and obese atheists/evolutionists. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:31, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
::::Conservative, you cannot compare the diet of Jesus to the diet of 21th century evolutionnists. It is 2 different times with completely different diets. And what make you think that Jesus was conservative ? He surely had pretty modern ideas for this time.--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 19:38, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::Also, the Apostle Peter who lived in Rome, probably was not overweight either and many present day Italians incorporate a Mediterranean diet. In addition, "In Europe, Italy was the only country where average weights actually dropped, and, along with France and Switzerland, it's home to some of Europe's slimmest people on average." [http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,14818710,00.html] I think Penn Jillette needs to ask himself, "What would Jesus or Michael Sylvester Gardenzio Stallone eat?" :) Also, unlike the overweight atheist Penn Jillette, Michael Sylvester Gardenzio Stallone is known for his [[Essay: Does Richard Dawkins have machismo?|machismo]]! :) See also: [[Sye Ten Bruggencate's debate challenge to atheist Penn Jillette]] See also: [[Sye Ten Bruggencate's debate challenge to atheist Penn Jillette]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:50, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::::Conservative, for Italy, France and Switzerland are countries with very high ratio of atheists, I fail to see how this helps your cause.--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 19:55, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
Do you believe that the atheist Penn Jillette has more [[Essay: Does Richard Dawkins have machismo?|machismo]] than the conservative Christian Chuck Norris and the Italian stallion Michael Sylvester Gardenzio Stallone? See also: [[Sye Ten Bruggencate's debate challenge to atheist Penn Jillette]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:58, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
::Conservative, what does machismo have to do with obesity ?--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 20:00, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
:::Yes, I am slightly confused also. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 20:02, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::Atheists and liberals often have great difficulty understanding the concept of [[Essay: Does Richard Dawkins have machismo?|machismo]]. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:06, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::Well I am neither and I fail to see the relevance to this discussion. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 20:07, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
::::"I like [[John McCain|McCain]] a lot. A lot. The script that's being written - and the reality - is pretty brutal and pretty hard-edged like a rough action film, and you need somebody who's been in that to deal with it." - Michael Sylvester Gardenzio Stallone [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:26, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::I'm sorry? I still don't understand. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 20:30, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::And Michael Sylvester Gardenzio Stallone eats a lot of fish, just like Jesus and the Apostle Peter did. :) [http://www.howcelebsgetfit.com/sylvester-stallone-fitness-training-exercise-and-diet-plan/] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:33, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::Why are you obsessed with Stallone today? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 20:40, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
Michael Sylvester Gardenzio Stallone certainly has his faults, but given that he incorporates aspects of the Mediterranean diet, he probably generally eats more like Jesus and the Apostle Peter does than the overweight atheist Penn Jillette who professes to respect science. :) I thought medical science, exercise science, and nutritional science were all part of science. :) And of course, the fit Stallone has more [[Essay: Does Richard Dawkins have machismo?|machismo]] than the overweight atheist Penn Jillette. :) See also: [[Sye Ten Bruggencate's debate challenge to atheist Penn Jillette]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]]
:Yes of course, because Italian cuisine - with its prosciutto, cotoletta, Tyrolische Speck, parma ham, cotechini, salami and wide range of meat dishes in a cream or cheese sauce is JUST LIKE the kosher diet of a 1st Century Judean. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 09:12, 19 September 2011 (EDT)
::Stallone was born in America. But I still can't see your point. Do you know that there are a lot of atheist in southern Europe who have a Mediterranean diet ?--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 22:10, 18 September 2011 (EDT)

Pat Tillman didn't lack machismo; neither did Bruce Lee. Lance Armstrong won seven Tour de France races. George Clooney is very popular with the ladies. All were/are atheists. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 22:02, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
:Bruce Lee '''definitely''' had machismo! Stallone became a catholic in 1996. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:04, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
::::[[Bruce Lee|Did he]]? By the way, "...it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment." - Hebrews 9:27 [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:07, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::What does that mean ?--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 22:12, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
:::: Stallone also took a lot of human growth hormone and was nearly charged for having it in Australia. Hardly a Biblical diet. [[User:Aortuso|Aortuso]] 22:05, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
As I indicated above, "Michael Sylvester Gardenzio Stallone certainly has his faults". With that being said, who does you think is in better health: Stallone or the overweight atheist Penn Jillette? Who do you think took better care of their health: Jesus or the overweight atheist Penn Jillette? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:23, 19 September 2011 (EDT)
:::Probably hard to tell when basing on mere looks. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 00:29, 19 September 2011 (EDT)
::Interesting fact: Penn Jillette is NOT the only atheist in the world. Why would you keep focusing on him ? Why don't you talk about other atheists like Bruce Lee Lance Armstrong or any of the multitude of fit atheists (like me for example) ?--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 00:28, 19 September 2011 (EDT)
Penn Jillette is not the only atheist in the world, but he makes up for it in weight. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:04, 19 September 2011 (EDT)
::Wow, that's a pretty good argument!--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 01:07, 19 September 2011 (EDT)

== You know, ==

the debate [[Talk:Atheism and obesity/Archive1#factual|here]] was never finished--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 21:56, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
:::I did respond. Have you contacted your representatives yet? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:59, 18 September 2011 (EDT)

== Minor typo ==

My apologies if I'm focusing too much on minor details, but I read this page after noticing it came up in Recent Changes, and I found a ''very'' minor grammatical error. In the Atheism and Health section, a comma is missing, as indicated here:

<blockquote>
In the journal article ''Religion, self-regulation, and self-control: Associations, explanations, and implications'' '''(comma should go here)''' psychologists McCullough and Willoughby theorize that many of the positive links of religiousness with health and social behavior may be caused by religion's beneficial influences on self-control/self-regulation
</blockquote>

As I said, it's a minor issue, but as a professional writer, it's the sort of thing I notice. Thank you very much! [[User:KevinDavis|Kevin Davis]] [[User talk:KevinDavis|Talk]] 23:05, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
:I just noticed that I myself had a minor typo in my above post, and I apologize. I meant "notice" instead of "noticed." Thank you! [[User:KevinDavis|Kevin Davis]] [[User talk:KevinDavis|Talk]] 23:06, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
:::Thanks. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:19, 19 September 2011 (EDT)
::::Thank you for correcting it! [[User:KevinDavis|Kevin Davis]] [[User talk:KevinDavis|Talk]] 23:07, 22 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::I am certainly a fool, and I'm still growing accustomed to Mediawiki's syntax. When I saw the difference link in my watchlist, I saw that the comment was outside the <nowiki>''</nowiki>, and I mistook those for quotes. Thus, my previous comment is irrelevant. Thanks! [[User:KevinDavis|Kevin Davis]] [[User talk:KevinDavis|Talk]] 23:07, 22 September 2011 (EDT)

== Reasonable debate offer ==

I wanted remove my offer from the cowardice talkpage because it is getting off-topic and people don't seem very genuine over there. Conservative has been talking a lot about how people (atheists I believe) won't debate him and are too scared to debate in general - I think that's what he is saying anyway, he can be a bit...confusing at times. I am not an atheist nor do I really know anything about science so having a debate about the existence of God or evolution is pointless. But I am willing to debate him on the topic of Atheism and Obesity. We can have a written debate right here on Conservapedia at an agreed upon time. If/When Conservative accepts this we can work out any further rules if required. If Conservative can let me know and if he declines I'd like a reason why that doesn't consist of a non-sequitar. Thanks, [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 18:00, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
:Hello? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 20:23, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
:::I still think you are an atheist and evolutionist and you know [[Talk:Cowardice|my policy about debating obscure atheist rather than non-obscure atheist.]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:59, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
::::I am '''not''' an atheist and your continued denial of my faith is extremely offensive. I have given you no reason to think I am so please desist in your remarks. My debate offer is very reasonable. Why will you not accept it? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 21:05, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::Max, I respect your good faith attempts to engage User:Conservative in debate, but it should be more than obvious to you, and everyone else, that User:Conservative does not intend to enter into a formal debate with anyone on any subject. As should be obvious from his articles and correspondences, User:Conservative does not appear interested in enlightening his audience or winning support for his worldview. No, quite clearly, his end goal is to ridicule and frustrate his ideological and philosophical enemies. He achieves this by continually bragging about his undefeated debating track record, yet never provides any proof or evidence his memory on this matter is accurate and correct. He issues challenges to those he knows will never accept his offer. Yet in turn sets up prerequisites that are impossible to satisfy for those who are willing to debate him. All previous offers to debate User:Conservative have met with one of the following responses:
:::::*Declined because the opponent is too "obscure" or not "prominent" enough.
:::::*Declined because the opponent would not meet his arcane list of demands.
:::::*Declined because his eventual victory is assured.
:::::*Ignored, then treated the requester to one of his world famous non-sequitur answers.(popular)
:::::*Ignored, no response given.
:::::*Ignored, offending offer deleted and burned.

:::::That's about it. That is all you can ever hope to get. Why? Because he's not interested in sharing, comparing, and contrasting ideas in a thoughtful manner. Nope, he just wants to ridicule and frustrate people. There's a word for that... rhymes with roll... mole? coal? Anyway, good luck. --[[User:SteveK|SteveK]] 01:04, 29 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::Pardon the puns, but I am only interested in debating the "big cheeses" within the atheist community and not the "small fries". :) I challenged the overweight atheist [[Penn Jillette]] to debate me, but he ran away which no doubt caused him to be out of breathe. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:46, 22 January 2012 (EST)
SteveK, I just found out that John J. Pasquini, Th.D., cited my Conservapedia [[atheism]] articles three times in his book'' Atheist Persona: Causes and Consequences'' (the book has 77 footnotes and cites Conservapedia atheism articles in footnotes 34, 64 and 67).[http://books.google.com/books?id=OMRhAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA24&lpg=PA24&dq=conservapedia+atheism&source=bl&ots=XoulnSQ90x&sig=_1xyC3wiZtD9ihYXVljTugA2tGk&hl=en&sa=X&ei=pL_3U72vB4r6oQTGg4HwCQ&ved=0CGsQ6AEwCTgK#v=onepage&q=conservapedia%20atheism&f=false] The book was favorably reviewed by [[Michael Behe]] (a leading proponent of [[intelligent design]] theory), [[Paul Vitz]] and [[Michael Egnor]] (also a proponent of intelligent design) and was published by the academic publisher University Press of America.[http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/atheist-persona-john-j-pasquini/1117916966?ean=9780761863328] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:19, 24 August 2014 (EDT)

==Bad Info==

The info on this page seems to be inaccurate, recent studies show that religious people are around 50% more likely to be obese than non believers, or at least non worshipers. Furthermore obesity occurrences in the United States seem to be centered around the Bible Belt and more Christian-Conservative States. Perhaps instead of criticizing other groups we should begin a campaign to educate fellow Christians and help people make healthier choices in their life. In my opinion, not taking care of your body is a sin, I think we should strive to make people healthier and perhaps start a campaign such as the successful [[Question Evolution Campaign]]. Source: http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700124603/Study-finds-link-between-religion-obesity.html Gelatin
::First of all, you misread your own source. Second, the shortcomings of the NorthWestern study have been discussed on this talk page. Third, as far as geographical area you are talking about, you haven't discussed other variables and last time I checked we still live in a multiple variable world. I suggest reading some books on statistics and improving your reading comprehension skills. Lastly, we really don't have any reliable reports of Moses, Elijah, Jesus or the Apostles Paul and Peter being overweight and I would be hard pressed to find more religious people than these very religious biblical figures. On the other hand, I certainly did show quite a few atheist leaders who have had weight challenges despite the fact that medical science, nutritional science and exercise science offers a host of solutions on a maintaining healthy weight. But just to make sure you are not a typical atheist denialist, has the [[New Atheism]] leadership had significant problems with being overweight? Has the [[American Atheists]] organization had significant problems with its leaders being overweight? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:36, 27 October 2011 (EDT)
:::Do you have any reports of Moses, Elijah etc NOT being overweight? As the only contemporary references we have to most of the prophets are in books the wrote themselves I don't think this is an argument I'd like to defend. --[[User:HarryPagett|HarryPagett]] 13:16, 21 December 2011 (EST)
[[File:70810564 64d3a67932.jpg|left|200px|thumb|Harry, Moses delivered to the Israel the Mosaic law. I believe that eating kosher is healthy. Ultra-orthodox Jews don't seem to have a problem with excess weight.]]
{{clear}}
I just find it interesting that we would concern ourselves with the incidence of obesity in atheists, as this seems rather non-sequitor. Why not look at things that are more related to faith and morality such as crime rates (http://current.com/community/92831935_atheists-supply-less-than-1-of-prison-populations-while-christians-make-up-75.htm) (http://www.pitzer.edu/academics/faculty/zuckerman/Zuckerman_on_Atheism.pdf) or sexual morality (http://spq.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/73/1/33) or racism and ethnocentrism (http://www.pitzer.edu/academics/faculty/zuckerman/Zuckerman_on_Atheism.pdf) even intelligence would be more telling than obesity (http://spq.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/73/1/33) [[User:CatholicBill]]

:As I understand it, the argument is that obesity is itself linked to most of these factors. For sexual morality, see [[Homosexuality and obesity]]. For intelligence, see the oft-made point that obese individuals may be ignoring scientific research into diet and exercise. For ethnocentricity, one might perhaps suggest that obese atheists are ignoring healthy ethnic foods such as brown rice and mung beans (should this be added to the article?). So you see, it's not that those issues are excluded, it's that effort is made to cover as many issues as possible, as amply as possible. The expansive obsesity writings enable anti-atheist fingers to be dipped into many pies.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 11:41, 21 December 2011 (EST)
::Is this a bad time to point out that dipping fingers in pies is likely to lead to obesity? :-) --[[User:HarryPagett|HarryPagett]] 13:20, 21 December 2011 (EST)
::::::User: CatholicBill, the article is about atheism and obesity - not crime statistics. It is certainly no crime to overeat or be overweight. Please stick to the topic of the article. Be that as it may: [http://creation.com/atheism#incarceration HERE is some crime statistics in relation to no-religion people you are failing to bring up.] As far as your other "arguments", you are failing to recognize that we live in a multi-variable world. For example, if affluence is related to atheism because people get "fat and sassy" (rebellious) towards God when their wallet is fuller then that would certainly affect IQ levels since their is a correlation between wealth and IQ. By the way, if atheists are so smart, then why did the Soviet Union fall? :) Lastly, the atheist community could take much of the wind out of the sails of this article simply by losing weight which is easy to do if you comply with what nutritional science, exercise science and medical science say to do. Atheists purport to love science so this should be quite easy to do if their purported love of science is genuine. So instead of kvetching about this article, I suggest that the atheist community get more serious about applying the health sciences within their community. If you are an atheist, next time you feel tempted to eat a Whopper ask yourself "What would Jesus eat?" According to the [[Mayo Clinic]] the Mediterranean diet/lifestyle (which is what Jesus ate/did) is quite healthy and compatible with weight loss.[http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/mediterranean-diet/CL00011] For example, Jesus no doubt ate figs and figs are a "sweet way to lose weight" or maintain a healthy weight.[http://www.whfoods.com/genpage.php?tname=foodspice&dbid=24#healthbenefits] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:18, 22 January 2012 (EST)

==Ad Hominem Abusive==

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)
:::::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)
::::::I hadn't noticed the others, thanks for the heads up. Shall I remove this section? It seems unnecessary. --[[User:Swinefish|Swinefish]] 23:07, 3 November 2011 (EDT)
:::::::You can leave it. You redefining a fallacy and it being pointed out was useful. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:31, 4 November 2011 (EDT)

== Other countries plus America's culture which is historically more car centered ==

:Rather contrary to the rather limited 'studies' that this article bases its claims off, I think it'd be most logical to conclude that atheism is inversely proportional to obesity, when you consider the USA has one of the highest (if not the highest) obesity rates in the Western world, and also happens to be the most religious.
Where do most Christians reside in the world? The East or the West? Are people in the East thinner? Do you have any large studies comparable to the Gallup study in size which isolate the religious variable in relation to health habits and/or obesity? More importantly, do you have any large studies comparable to the Gallup study in size which isolates the variable of religiousness in relation to health habits and/or obesity and measures the "Very religious". The reason I ask these questions is that we know the major variables of income, education and race affect how people eat/exercise.

In addition, we know that America is the birth place of large scale automobile manufacturing ([[Henry Ford]] and Ford Motor Company) plus has had federal/state public policy pushing the interstate highways and suburbia (Also, America had white flight out of the cities and into the suburbs).[http://www.skidmore.edu/academics/roads/TRANSCRIPT.html] So it comes as no big surprise that America has a very automobile centered culture and has less of a bicycle/walking culture than many Western nations (bike lanes and bike paths, etc). Of course, this has a significant negative impact on the amount of exercise in America and adds to obesity.[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19164816][http://policy.rutgers.edu/faculty/pucher/jpah08.pdf]

Next, to make sure you are not an atheist denialist, did a significant number of the New Atheism founders (and [[PZ Myers]]} have a significant problem with being overweight? See: [[New Atheism leadership's problem with excess weight]] Similarly, does/did a significant number of the board of directors of the [[American Atheists]] organization have a problem with being overweight? See: [[Atheism and obesity]] Also, does [[Penn Jillette]] have a problem with being overweight?

In short, your analysis was far too simplistic and suffered as a result. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:53, 31 March 2012 (EDT)
:::By the way, thanks for reminding me about this article. I just added [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/8106603.stm another picture citation] to the [[Atheism and obesity]] article. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:29, 1 April 2012 (EDT)
::::Addendum: I added a few pictures that further illustrate the issue of atheism and obesity and/or the problems associated with atheist obesity. For example, atheist [[PZ Myers]]' difficulty ascending and descending the dinosaur model at the [[Creation Museum]] due to the fact that he was overweight and out of shape.[http://conservapedia.com/Atheism_and_obesity#PZ_Myers.27_visit_to_the_Creation_Museum] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:06, 1 April 2012 (EDT)

== Form follows function ==

Or in this case - the form reflects the content: it is just messy:
*there are two sections above the TOC
*the references/notes are a mess: generally each should show which source is quoted. That's helpful for the reader when he ponders whether the link is worth following...
*having a separate section for each atheist is messy and clutters the TOC - especially as those section sometimes only state the name.
*it is a pain to read: e.g, the phrase ''in addition'' pops up a dozen times...

The whole subject is ridiculous, but User:Conservative, when you are spending so much time micro-managing it, couldn't you try to improve its outfit and readability? Thanks, [[User:AugustO|AugustO]]

:For those in a hurry, I have condensed some of the essential info about individuals into a [[Gallery of obese atheists|gallery page]]. They do say that a picture is worth a thousand words. Could a link from this page be added?--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:08, 20 June 2012 (EDT)

== Comment for User:Conservative ==

I must commend you for all your work tying fat people to atheism/homosexuality/etc., etc. Too bad you don't spend your time trying to help both sectors (obese people and atheists) by showing compassion and God's love rather than disdain and mockery.

True witnessing for God doesn't consist of putting people down because you dislike them for either their appearance (obese people - you obviously have an issue with them) or their beliefs (atheists).

How many people do you truly think you've brought to God with your writings? As an obese Christian, I know you've offended me with your attempts to link obesity with everything you hate, and I doubt that disbelievers would feel any less offended. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 11:11, 29 June 2012 (EDT)

Edited to add: Quite frankly, your writings make me feel toward you the same way as I have ever felt toward the bullies I've encountered in my real life. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 11:36, 29 June 2012 (EDT)
=== Response of User: Conservative ===
Sharon, above are discussions about atheism and obesity.

As far as [[Homosexuality and obesity]] among other things I cited this:

"The journalist [[Peter LaBarbera]] wrote:

The National Youth Risk Behavior Surveys are given to high schoolers, and the Centers for Disease Control looked at the data from 2001 to 2009 in the states of Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Vermont, Wisconsin and the cities of Boston, Chicago, Milwaukee, New York City, San Francisco and San Diego, locales where the schools permitted questions about homosexual identity/behavior, which isn’t always the case in less “progressive” areas.

Teens who called themselves “gay, lesbian or bisexual,” or who were unsure, as well as those who didn’t use those labels but had sexual contact only with same-sex people or with both sexes, were found to be more likely than heterosexually identified students to engage in seven out of the 10 risk behavior categories. These were: 1) behaviors that contribute to violence; 2) behaviors related to attempted suicide; 3) tobacco use; 4) alcohol use; 5) other drug use; 6) sexual behaviors; and 7) weight management. (emphasis added)"[http://americansfortruth.com/2011/06/24/wrong-diagnosis-wrong-cure-harvey-assails-cdcs-pro-gay-youth-spin/#more-9505]

You may disagree with me, but I think the [[Centers for Disease Control]] is a valid source to use in this instance. I am not saying the CDC is perfect, but nevertheless I don't have a problem with citing them in this instance. I also have no problem citing a conservative journalist who formerly worked for a leading newspaper and a conservative organization.

Also, today I added some health/fitness information on weight loss plus some additional information from responsible sources. I don't see why an encyclopedia should refrain from offering useful/valid information. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:42, 29 June 2012 (EDT)

::I disagree with the tone of your writings, yes. Please explain to me how [http://conservapedia.com/Gallery_of_obese_atheists this] helps anyone? Does it draw people closer to God's word? Does it show God's love? Or does it show pettiness instead? It's certainly not funny, or educational, or loving in any way. But then again, I guess you don't claim to be witnessing, do you? What exactly is the purpose behind the linking of obesity to everything you hate? Are you even ''trying'' to convert anyone? --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 14:07, 29 June 2012 (EDT)
::::I don't see us agreeing on the topics of obesity and atheism/homosexuality anytime soon. But I know I did cite relevant sources such as the [[Centers for Disease Control]]/Peter LaBarbera (see above) and [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=17463369&ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum this Pubmed material]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 14:48, 29 June 2012 (EDT)

:::::No, I doubt that I'll ever think bullying behavior toward obese people is the correct way to act. And I notice you totally fail to answer my questions - why? You accuse people of being cowards when they fail to answer your questions. Maybe you ought to take a good, long look in the mirror. Don't flatter yourself that you win when you avoid answering. I've challenged you before about having a debate over the treatment Conservapedia deals out toward fat people. Care to take me up on it? --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 15:09, 29 June 2012 (EDT)

== Other commentary ==

You won't see Jesus, Moses, Apostle Paul or the Apostle Peter in your list. They pretty much ate a Mosaic diet or Mediterranean diet employing reasonable portions and had sufficient exercise.
::Conveniently, there doesn't exist any portraits of these people that were done from life, so you're making an assumption here. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 15:29, 29 June 2012 (EDT)

Here are some interesting articles on weight loss and maintaining a healthy weight:

*[http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/mediterranean-diet/CL00011 Mediterranean diet] by [[Mayo Clinic]]
*[http://www.motleyhealth.com/fitness/how-much-exercise-is-needed-to-get-fit-and-lose-weight How much exercise is needed to get fit and lose weight]
*[http://www.bbc.co.uk/health/treatments/healthy_living/fitness/daily_howmuch.shtml Exercise: How much? - BBC News]
*[http://www.acsm.org/about-acsm/media-room/news-releases/2011/08/01/acsm-issues-new-recommendations-on-quantity-and-quality-of-exercise American College of Sports Medicine]

My thoughts on this matter agree with this material: [[Chuck Norris on the topic of obesity]]

I have met people from various parts of the world and there is far less obesity in the [[Eastern World]] than in many parts of the [[Western World]] and I think the reason is that they eat better, get more exercise and are often more disciplined. Also, Asian Americans generally lead more healthy lives too than many westerners. I have a feeling that Amy Chua doesn't allow her kid(s) to eat a lot of snacks and watch a lot of television. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:31, 29 June 2012 (EDT)
:Non sequitur. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 16:00, 29 June 2012 (EDT)

:''You won't see Jesus, Moses, Apostle Paul or the Apostle Peter in your list.'' No, the list doesn't imply that all Christians are obese! Do you think that there are only fat atheists?
:It seems that your belief is just one amongst a lot more influential factors when it comes to personal appearance.
:[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 03:27, 30 June 2012 (EDT)
::AugustO, the Mosaic diet does not lead to obesity. See the [https://www.google.com/search?q=ultra-orthodox+jews&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=91idU-PwH8OzyASG1IGgBw&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAQ&biw=1024&bih=504 Google image search for ultra-orthodox Jews] Slim! Jesus, Moses, Elijah, Peter, and Paul were slim! I rest my case! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 04:29, 15 June 2014 (EDT)

== Richard Dawkins ==

Im surprised Richard Dawkins wasn;t there. Then again, it makes sense. The entire essay revolves around a fictional premise that atheists are obese in comparison to Christians.[[User:Brenden|brenden]] 16:04, 29 June 2012 (EDT)
:Isn't Richard Dawkins an agnostic? It is rather humorous that a founder of the [[New Atheism]] movement was an agnostic. :) Also, didn't 3/5 of the New Atheism movmement's founders have excess weight? See: [[New Atheism leadership's problem with excess weight]]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:19, 29 June 2012 (EDT)

== Seriously? ==

User:Conservative - you have once again deleted a comment of mine. It was not offensive, nor was it trolling. I request that you please restore it. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 16:22, 29 June 2012 (EDT)
::The brief discussion was pointless and was only going to lead to bickering. I have decided to move on. I will say for the record that I didn't initially create [[Essay: Gallery of obese atheists|the gallery]] nor did I add any pictures of new people. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:28, 29 June 2012 (EDT)
:::Do try to remember that you had to delete and oversight our "brief discussion" the next time you want to call someone a coward. And yes, while you didn't initially create ''this'' gallery, you are the only one on this site obsessed with creating all of the "Conservapedia hates fat people" articles - you know the ones where you say fat people are atheists, lesbians, homosexuals, blah, blah, blah. You pretend you're being helpful by providing the links to diets, etc., but the disdainful language surrounding the links trumps them. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 16:55, 29 June 2012 (EDT)
:::::For the record, I have never said that all overweight people are atheists or lesbians/homosexuals nor have I said that CP hates overweight people.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:01, 29 June 2012 (EDT)
::::::But you do not deny deleting and oversighting a discussion you had with SharonW. As she says, please remember that next time you throw out an accusation of cowardice or unwillingness to debate. I know that all those you make the accusation against certainly will. [[User:Davidspencer|Davidspencer]] 17:07, 29 June 2012 (EDT)
:::::::David, if you want to accuse me of cowardice despite my offers to debate prominent atheists/evolutionists, I am not particularly concerned. If you are a fan of the agnostic/evolutionist [[Richard Dawkins]] or [[Penn Jillette]] or fan of any other prominent evolutionists or atheists, I would encourage you to ask them to engage in written debate with me. For example, feel free to contact Dawkins about this open debate offer: [[Essay: Debate challenge for Richard Dawkins]]. My material has been read by a lot of people and given the current decline of [[global atheism]] and global agnosticism which is expected to accelerate and the decline of American evolutionism in the last 17 months [http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/06/american-young-earth-creationism.html], they clearly need to do something if the care about their religions. But if they want to fiddle while [[Essay: Penn Jillette, don't just stand there! Do something!|global atheism/agnosticism/evolutionism burns]] that is fine with me. My fellow Bible believing Christians and I have no problem roasting hot dogs and marshmellows (in moderation of course) on the bonfire of global atheism/agnosticism/evolutionism burning. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:02, 29 June 2012 (EDT)
Addendum: As far as oversighting a few sentences of material because I didn't want to be dragged into the ridiculous debate of whether Jesus was overweight, I have no regrets. Being charged with cowardice about the matter was rather humorous though. In retrospect, it was definitely one of the most humorous things to occur on CP. Jesus was a carpenter before the days of power tools and then he became a traveling preacher/prophet who did a lot of walking. Plus, he lived in the Middle East about 2,000 years ago and ate a healthy Mosaic diet. I very much doubt anyone is going to give someone an extended debate about this matter. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:07, 30 June 2012 (EDT)
::::::::Way to go once again with a strawman. You know nothing about me but because I point out that you removed a comment to prevent debate, whilst accusing others of cowardice of when they do not reply to your invitations on this site to debate, you feel free to make unfounded and unsupported assertions about me. But we all know that is your modus operandi and my pointing it out will not change anything will it? Incidentally, can you point me to a shop where I can but marshmellows, I rather fancy trying some roasted. [[User:Davidspencer|Davidspencer]] 02:09, 30 June 2012 (EDT)
::::::::::Silly! You get them in the Mellow Marshes. Obviously. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 02:52, 30 June 2012 (EDT)
:I don't want to indulge [[User:Conservative]] any more than I absolutely have to, but making a claim about an individual's diet 2000 years ago based on (what appear to be) cultural norms is fallacious and entirely speculative. For one, my guess would be that polytheists, in general, would also have a similar diet. By your argument, Christians are obese because Christian Americans eat fatty food (see the gallery above). [[User:GregG|GregG]] 00:12, 30 June 2012 (EDT)
:I forgot to add that it's really not fair to compare average weights of people in societies over 2000 years old (when starvation and food production are major issues) and today (where we have significantly increased our food production capacity; very few first-world people are starving to death). [[User:GregG|GregG]] 00:14, 30 June 2012 (EDT)
Greg, I have some modern pictures of ultra-orthodox Jews to offer as evidence that the Mosaic diet does not lead to obesity. See the [https://www.google.com/search?q=ultra-orthodox+jews&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=91idU-PwH8OzyASG1IGgBw&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAQ&biw=1024&bih=504 Google image search for ultra-orthodox Jews] Slim! Jesus, Moses, Elijah, Peter, and Paul were slim! I rest my case! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 04:49, 15 June 2014 (EDT)
::GregG, why don't you ask [[William Lane Craig]] to debate someone on this topic. If he thinks it is a serious topic, I am sure he will hold a debate on this matter. I hope you will forgive me for saying this, but I have my doubts Craig is going to hold a debate about this topic. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:34, 30 June 2012 (EDT)

Good grief, Conservative - you were blathering on about nobody wanting to buy a picture of a fat Jesus, and I pointed out that people buy pictures of Jesus portrayed as blond, blue-eyed Caucasian all the time, and that I doubted that Jesus actually looked like that. Those were the comments you over-sighted. There was no argument about whether or not Jesus was fat - I just pointed out that ''you can't possibly know for certain''. I have offered to debate you about your treatment of obese people, and you have refused. You are the one who accuses people of cowardice over not debating. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 01:00, 30 June 2012 (EDT)
::A general message to all re: the [[Atheism and obesity]] article:

::I have not had a campaign against overweight people in general.

::I merely pointed out the obesity in the atheist, homosexual and lesbian populations in the Western World. I also pointed out that atheists pretend to love science and science gives us abundance information on how to lose weight and the negative effects of being overweight. Workout an hour or more a day (strength training and aerobic exercise) and eat a sensible diet (reasonable amount of fruits and vegetables or Mediterranean diet or Zone diet, low glycemic foods, etc.) and the vast majority of people will lose the weight and keep it off with a reasonable amount of maintenance exercise. I provided all the information on how to lose weight and keep it off via a healthy lifestyle.

::I also pointed out that in 2005, there were 4 times as many Eastern World Christians as Western World Christians (and that Eastern World people have healthier lifestyles in general) and there is a significant amount of data indicating that the very religious in America live healthier lifestyles than others in America. Plus, I gave sound research indicating that religion in the West tends to increase self-discipline (all other things remaining equal of course).

::In addition, I pointed out that there seems to be a higher incidence of obesity within the homosexual population and provided sound evidence. Most homosexuals are liberals and liberals purport to love science so I don't see why this is not fair to point out.

::I also pointed out that people cannot reasonably claim that Jesus, Moses, Peter and the Apostle Paul were overweight. For example, there are several Bible passages against gluttony and sloth. The Bible is definitely not friendly to gluttony and sloth. Given that many Western atheists presently scoff at how superior their ideology is over a biblical worldview this is certainly fair to point out.

::I realize that the Western World has become prosperous and history teaches us that prosperity in a culture can lead to complacency and those cultures declining/falling. As a result, advocating self-discipline is not going to be a popular idea among many at the present time. Recently, [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bqeeFhnlHvk a book came out] essentially saying that overweight people in general need to be more self-disciplined, personally responsible and more mentally tough and if memory serves he ignited caller complaints after his public appearances (By the way, the author is an ex overweight guy and it appears he is a libertarian atheist or at least anti-Bible).

::Lastly, as far as the [[Overweight atheists comedy and satire]], atheists (and liberals) sure seem willing to dish out satire, but I have noticed that they can dish it out, but they can't take it. Could atheist pride be the issue? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:11, 30 June 2012 (EDT)

:::I was wondering [[User:Conservative|Conservative]]. You quite rightly, in my opinion, have a dislike of obese people - especially atheists. Are you willing to reveal the weight of the collective known as [[User:Conservative|Conservative]]? Personally I am 5 foot 10 inches and weigh (currently) 14 stone. What do you (and/or your respective contributors) weigh. If you are unwilling to reveal the number of members of your collective (a somewhat socialist concept I must say) then an average weight will do if you are willing to provide it. [[User:Davidspencer|Davidspencer]] 10:42, 30 June 2012 (EDT)
[[File:Sun Tzu portrait.jpg|thumbnail|right|200px|"Subtle! Subtle! They become formless. Mysterious! Mysterious! They become soundless. Therefore, they are the masters of the enemy's fate." - [[Sun Tzu]] ]]
::::David, do you understand the difference between fact and opinion? You certainly have provided no proof and evidence that I/we dislike obese people - none! :) Secondly, within reason people rightly like others who stick to their guns on matters and prior to User:Conservative's material on obesity and the atheism/homosexuality, User: Conservative did say that no identifying information would be give on us/me. :) Of course, it goes without saying that this policy will continue. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:08, 30 June 2012 (EDT)

:::::Maybe not "dislike", as "determined to constantly and consistently portray in as negative a manner as possible" with as many links to things you ''do'' dislike. I personally don't see much difference. [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 09:47, 2 July 2012 (EDT)

===Biblical position===
Is the Bible really so strongly against overeating, as [[user:Conservative]] says?

Jesus only discusses the topic once, in Matthew Chapter 11 (and also as recounted in Luke), where he addresses accusations, presumably made by those killjoy Pharisees, that ''he himself'' was a glutton. He doesn't seem remotely troubled by the accusations, does not bother to deny or refute them, and seems to say that it doesn't really matter whether one chooses to be abstemious (like John the Baptist) or indulgent (like the Son of Man).

So I don't think [[user:Conservative]]'s claim that "[t]he Bible is definitely not friendly to gluttony" really gives the whole story. And I would rather agree with Jesus than with the Pharisees, who presumably also thought there was a biblical basis for their own misguided finger-wagging.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 05:02, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
:::CPalmer, as you are probably aware, the Apostle Paul declared: "All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;" (2 Timothy 3:16). Accordingly, when it comes to the issues of gluttony and sloth, these portions of the Bible also need to be taken into account: Old Testament (such as Proverbs), the words of the Apostle Paul and the Apostle Peter and any other Bible verses on this matter. Christians should not inadvertently or intentionally employ the [[fallacy of exclusion]] when informing themselves on these issues. Here are some verses in the Bible on gluttony: [http://www.openbible.info/topics/gluttony Biblical teaching on gluttony]. Biblical teaching on laziness/sloth: http://codybateman.wordpress.com/2006/09/10/laziness-introduction-and-bible-study-guide/

:::In addition, it would be unwise for Christians to ignore what medical science and other disciplines of science indicate on these matters. (see: [[Physical and mental health related problems associated with obesity]]). Besides the obvious benefit of feeling better and having more energy and thus getting more done through avoiding the besetting sins of gluttony and sloth (Paul did command Christians to be good stewards and to make the most of their time), preventative medicine is often better than treating illness after the fact.

:::I realize that working out and eating right are not always fun and require self-discipline. But like most things in life, in most cases, it merely requires replacing bad habits with good habits. The reason why many diets fail is that people never establish a healthy lifestyle via establishing good habits. In addition, people can do things to make exercise more fun or productive (music, audio books, etc.).
[[File:Hong Kong Christians at Gateway Camp.jpg|thumbnail|right|250px|[[Hong Kong]] Christians at Gateway Camp. In 2005, there were four times as many non-Western World Christians as there were [[Western World]] Christians.[http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=30077]
 
(photo obtained from [http://www.flickr.com/photos/mckln/4815046728/in/set-72157624550425162 Flickr], see [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/2.0/deed.en license agreement])]]

:::Next, I do think that Christians need to be informed about church history plus not have a myopic view of the world. In many cases, it could be argued that at the present time the Western World church is behaving like the undisciplined Church at Corinth which the Apostle Paul had to correct.[http://www.churchleaders.com/?news=139580/] Let's not forget, there are plenty of Christians in the world who are living healthy lifestyles and avoiding the sins of gluttony and sloth. See: [[Global Christianity]]

:::Lastly, there are certainly self-disciplined Christians in the West and no doubt some of them were a part of the Gallup survey and other social science data (see: [[Atheism and obesity]]). For example, in the journal article ''Religion, self-regulation, and self-control: Associations, explanations, and implications'', psychologists McCullough and Willoughby theorize that many of the positive links of religiousness with health and social behavior may be caused by religion's beneficial influences on [[self-control]]/self-regulation.[http://www.psy.miami.edu/faculty/mmccullough/Papers/Relig_self_control_bulletin.pdf][http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19210054] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:20, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
::::I see you are siding with the Pharisees, then.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 12:03, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
::::Here are the questions that I think you need to consider. They are in two groups, one focusing on Jesus' position, and one on that of the Pharisees:
::::'''JESUS:''' Do you agree that Jesus seems to say that gluttony isn't really a big deal in Matthew 11? You seem to think that it is a big deal - are you therefore saying that Jesus was wrong? Or is it more important now than it was - if Jesus was on earth nowadays and was accused of being a glutton, do you think he would deny the accusation more vigorously? Or would Jesus, if on earth today, follow a strict diet so that the accusation would not be made? Why did he not do so in the first century?

::::'''PHARISEES:''' One way the Pharisees attacked Jesus was by calling him a glutton. Do you think they were right or justified to do so? How do your accusations of gluttony, used to attack atheists and homosexuals, differ from the Pharisees' attacks on Jesus, if at all? What do you think was the Pharisees' basis for being against gluttony? Would it have been scriptural? Would it have been justified? How would it have differed, if at all, from your own scriptural basis? Is it possible that you have followed the same process as the Pharisees in arriving at your own views about gluttony?--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 08:16, 3 July 2012 (EDT)
CPalmer, the Mosaic diet does not lead to obesity. See the [https://www.google.com/search?q=ultra-orthodox+jews&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=91idU-PwH8OzyASG1IGgBw&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAQ&biw=1024&bih=504 Google image search for ultra-orthodox Jews] Slim! Jesus, Moses, Elijah, Peter, and Paul were slim! I rest my case! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 04:29, 15 June 2014 (EDT)

==Article Structure==
This article seems a bit overly complex in its structure. When there are 54 sections in the contents bar, it seems to me that some of these could be merged or deleted without changing the overall flow of the article too much. I don't intend to make any particular changes, because certain admins seem to have a lot of effort invested in this article, and I'd rather not irritate people higher up the food chain than me, but that's my opinion at this point.--[[User:DTSavage|DTSavage]] 14:42, 24 September 2012 (EDT)
:Addendum: If the particular example subsections could be organized in some way (possibly alphabetical by last name), I feel that that might help with the readability of the article to some extent.--[[User:DTSavage|DTSavage]] 14:47, 24 September 2012 (EDT)
[[File:Hand and cookies.jpg|thumbnail|right|200px|Obesity is positively associated with [[neuroticism]], impulsiveness, and lower [[self-control|self-discipline]].
 
 
(photo obtained from [http://www.flickr.com/photos/waytoocrowded/1899823572/ Flickr], see [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/deed.en license agreement])]]
:::When deciding the order of the pictures, I LARGELY used a combination of chronological order, the prominence of the atheist and their atheism and obesity "weight class". Should some of these atheists follow the recommendations of [[medical science]], [[nutritional science]] and [[exercise science]], I may move them lower down the in article.

:::There are a number of topics within and related to the atheism and obesity such as irreligion and irrationality (see: [[Irreligion and superstition]]). Some of the causes of obesity are neuroticism, impulsiveness, anger and lower self-discipline issues (see: [[Atheism and obesity]]). Of course, these causes of obesity are also related to irrationality and God-hating. See also: [[Causes of atheism]]). [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:03, 24 September 2012 (EDT)
== Unlock this page please ==
I have material to add--[[User:JerryCa|JerryCa]] 01:20, 6 April 2014 (EDT)
:Please clarify. And if it is a study, have the study have a large data set, be well-designed and control for important variables such as socioeconomic factors.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 08:56, 6 April 2014 (EDT)
::Do I have to justify my postings to you? Surely the very concept of a wiki is to combine resources. I wanted to add some obese atheists but if you do not want help forget it.--[[User:JerryCa|JerryCa]] 17:08, 6 April 2014 (EDT)
:::JerryCa, I am not worried about a shortage of prominent, obese atheists featured in the article. The article features a robust collection of prominent, obese atheists. But feel free to make suggestions on the talk page of the article in the latter part of 5/2019 when your block expires.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 04:55, 15 June 2014 (EDT)

== Mention the Book of Daniel, the scientific experiment in Daniel with a control group and the Daniel diet plan ==

Mention the Book of Daniel, the scientific experiment in Daniel with a control group and the Daniel diet plan mentioned [http://users.adam.com.au/bstett/BObesity155.html HERE]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 03:14, 9 October 2014 (EDT)

== Kim Jong-un ==
You can add this: "[http://english.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2014/05/08/2014050801606.html N.Korean Leader Getting Fatter]." Tha man's immoral behavior may be causing him to find solace in exessive eating. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] 04:15, 10 October 2014 (EDT)
:Upon your request, I added it. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 04:26, 10 October 2014 (EDT)

==Erasmus Darwin==
Corpulent Grandad Erasmus died when Charles Darwin was a little boy. Please explain how he was an evolutionist. It's like saying my grandfather (who died when I was a little boy) worked with wood and was interested in classical music. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 01:52, 26 October 2014 (EDT)
==Medical opinion==
Conservative, with the acception of Dr. Stephen Joseph, who does not really support your claims, can you point to a medical professional who agrees with your assessment? Also can you show me a a respectable source that shows that the USA is not the the most obese nation in the world? I don't want you to question my religious affiliation or point me to one of your other articles I just want to see an unbiased opinion that agrees with you. Can you do that?--[[User:Tomqua|Tomqua]] 10:13, 19 March 2015 (EDT)

=== Making sure you are not a proud atheist who engages in the fallacy of exclusion ===

Just to make sure you are not an [[Atheism and arrogance|arrogant atheist]] who engages in the [[fallacy of exclusion]], I have some questions for you before I am willing to continue:

1. Does the atheist community in the [[Western World]] have a problem with obesity and do they have a greater problem with obesity than religious Africa? See also: [[Secular Europe and obesity]]

2. Are there a number of prominent atheists with excess weight issues? Does medical science have effective methods to lose weight? Do nutritionists and exercise scientists have effective methods of losing weight such as cutting out processed foods, eating a low calorie and low fat diet combined with vigorous exercise? If so, why are so many of the overweight atheists featured in this article still overweight? Do they love pie and other fattening foods and also love being a coach potato more than they love science?

3. Based on the historical data, which historically likely had a greater problem with obesity: Jesus and his disciples or the leadership of the New Atheist movement? See: [[New Atheism leadership's problem with excess weight]] and [[Jesus Christ, the apostles and the Mediterranean diet/Mosaic diet]]. Also, please see these [https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Orthodox+Jews%22&rlz=1C2AVNA_enUS588US588&biw=1024&bih=667&tbm=isch&source=lnms&sa=X&ei=4xhQVPD0KsyfyATQxoCwBA&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAQ tons of pictures] of Orthodox Jews which I presume eat a Mosaic diet. Notice how slim they are!

4. Is the atheist PZ Myers overweight in [https://gaylejordan.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/dsc02944.jpg THIS PICTURE] - especially in his abdominal area?

5. With increasing prosperity, does atheistic China have an ever growing obesity problem? See: [[China and obesity]]. A recent study published in the ''Obesity Reviews'' journal, found that Chinese teenagers' rate of [[diabetes]] was four times that of their [[United States|American]] peers.[http://www.china.org.cn/china/2012-09/14/content_26521029.htm] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:16, 19 March 2015 (EDT)
:::Questions for you:

1: Do young people visit Conservapedia?

2: Do many young people have problem with weight whilst going through or recently gone through puberty?

3:Do many of these people have crisis of religion during these times?

4:Are many of these people impressionable enough to believe what you say?

The answer to all the above is yes. So many of them will look at this article and believe it to be the answer, it is not. These people need medical advice about their weight and reading your article they will not get it. Therefore you are being downright irresponsible preaching it.--[[User:Tomqua|Tomqua]] 15:31, 19 March 2015 (EDT)
::Tomqua, thank you for confirming that you are a proud atheist who engages in the fallacy of exclusion. Pride - one of the biggest achilles' heels of atheism! See also: [[Atheism and arrogance]]. If you are unwilling to address evidence, which I clearly showed, please cease wasting my time. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:38, 19 March 2015 (EDT)
:::I have confirmed nothing of the sort. Are you an atheist? You display many of the traits you pin on atheists. I am a Christian but do not recognize you as such. Gods message is love, yours is hatred.--[[User:Tomqua|Tomqua]] 15:41, 19 March 2015 (EDT)
::::Speaking of fallacies, ever heard of Ad Hominem? You know I am correct and cannot find fault with my reasoning so you attack me instead. Please feel free to engage in last wordism--[[User:Tomqua|Tomqua]] 15:43, 19 March 2015 (EDT)
I am not going to wrestle in the proverbial mud with someone I believe is a proud atheist who likes to engage in the [[fallacy of exclusion]]. Feel free to engage in more [[last wordism]]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:59, 19 March 2015 (EDT)
:My church: The Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster. Very protestant and somewhat conservative. Although I am sure you can find some reason to hate it if you dig around enough.--[[User:Tomqua|Tomqua]] 16:13, 19 March 2015 (EDT)

Talk:Atheism and obesity

2015-03-19T19:44:57Z

Tomqua: /* Making sure you are not a proud atheist who engages in the fallacy of exclusion */

Talk:Atheism and obesity

2015-03-19T19:44:22Z

Tomqua: /* Making sure you are not a proud atheist who engages in the fallacy of exclusion */

==Opinion from a Christian==
After skimming through these discussions, I can't believe the arguments going on and which are not going on. I enjoy conservapedia, and always check for an
article here first, and go to Wikipedia if I cannot find it here. I was telling my friend at work (She's a Christian female also) two days ago about this site as a great
Wikipedia alternative in response to a question she had, and was rudely interrupted by another of our coworkers (this ones NOT a Christian, he's a liberal smart
aleck immature boy in his 20s) who shouted "Conservapedia? HAH have you seen their page calling non-christians fat? Not sure if that's going to pass as a
Scholarly source" or something similar to that. He then pulled up this page and started reading it out loud. I have never been so embarrassed in my life. Fat jokes?
I skimmed and found the main argument on this page concerning studies and whether it's true or not, but do I really have to explain this?

It doesn't matter whether or not it's true, because considering the number of people in both groups (millions of Christians! Even atheists I'm sure are 100,000 in the
US. There are going to be a whole lot of obese Christians, thin Christians, obese atheists, and thin atheists. The immature kid at my work is thinner than I am,
which is natural considering the sample sizes involved. Even if it's true, that means that in real life situations the reverse will happen (the atheist coworker would be
fatter than me) slightly more often. Well in case the person or persons who made this page are so out of touch from Christians in the real world, it makes us seem
petty and childish calling the fat guy fat! And in the 40% or whatever times that the Christian is fatter than the atheist (my situation at work), it makes us seem
petty, childish, and just wrong because the fat girl is calling the skinny guy fat ! What purpose is this page supposed to serve other than being embarrassing?

I'll spell this out even simpler: two situations. Situation 1: Fat atheist, the article seems true, and the fat atheist gets sympathy bc Christians are making fun of his
weight. Situation 2: Skinny atheist, and Christians putting forth this site as a better alternative to Wikipedia looks delusional.

Until this filth is removed i will most certainly not be putting my personal recommendation (and by extension, reputation) to this site. So angry, it feels like my son
back in middle school when I'd get calls from his teacher and I'd have to apologize for his behaving like 2 year old in class. NOT Christian-like and NOT helpful -Patty

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)
:JamesTimmons, why didn't you cite the journal articles and other relevant data in the article. That should have put the matter to rest. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 04:21, 15 June 2014 (EDT)
:::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- http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42256829/ns/health-diet_and_nutrition/ 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)
:And addition reason occurred to me why the NorthWestern U study is suspect and why the abundant data I cited in the article is a more accurate picture of the current state of affairs. It appears that they picked poor inner city churches in the USA. Research indicates that a lower socioeconomic status is related to higher rates of obesity.[http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism_and_obesity#cite_note-60] Therefore, the overall culture/practices of those churches would tend to be more prone to obesity inducing practices (donuts after church instead of a yuppie, suburban church juice bar; fatty foods at frequent church gatherings, etc. etc. Please see the very relevant [http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/4490719-460/religion-and-obesity-study-links-church-and-being-fat.html comments of Courtney Parker above] related to church gatherings in his particular city. So even if the researchers tried to use regression analysis to limit the effect of an individual's socioeconomic status as far as the overall analysis, the overall cultural practices of the inner city churches they seemed to predominantly pick would still creep in.

:Plus, most Christians are not in the Western World and quite slim plus I cited a wealth of other data such as researchers finding that religious faith increases a person's amount of self-control, the Gallup data, religious people living longer, etc. etc. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:40, 24 August 2014 (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 instead 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)
::MaxFlethcher, what makes you think that the [[User: Conservative]] account is edited by merely one person? No true skeptic believes this. Second, you provided no evidence that this article is an attack on atheism. Obesity is an important societal problem in the Western World and in many other parts of the world. This article provides data that help people better understand the issue of [[Atheism and obesity]] and it cites data from a wide variety of relevant sources. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 04:13, 15 June 2014 (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)
Sharon, thank you. This article pains me, as an overweight, hard-working Christian. Attacking people for their appearance and body type is to me a lot more of an atheistic, MTV generation behavior. I'm very disturbed to see such superficial bullying (using much less solid evidence) coming from our camp. Judge people by their works and their words and not by their bodies.[[User:KingHanksley|KingHanksley]] 16:06, 14 December 2011 (EST)

==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)
::NateK, given your comment about wanting to punch someone in the nose (someone trained in a martial art who you couldn't hit in the nose if you wanted to), you are hardly in a position to lecture on decorum! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 05:08, 15 June 2014 (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)

:Setting aside whether or not [[Penn Jillette]] offered a good reason, is this often correct?: J. P. Morgan: " A man always has two reasons for doing anything: a good reason and the real reason." The reason I ask is due to this: [[Sye Ten Bruggencate's debate challenge to atheist Penn Jillette]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:26, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
:::[[Essay: This year's best atheist debaters]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 07:17, 4 August 2011 (EDT)

::Was this comment placed here by accident?
::*It doesn't have to do anything with the comment above.
::*User:Human is blocked indefinitely, so he won't answer timely.
::*Traditionally, new stuff goes to the end of a thread...
::[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 01:25, 19 September 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)

My previous comment seemed to be not civil enough, so I try to rephrase my statement: I'm well aware that ''successfully'' is a quite ambiguous term, and I don't want to put to much into it. On various occasions has User:Conservative expressed his desire to debate atheists and/or evolutionist like [[Richard Dawkins]] and [[Penn Jillette]]. He (or even she!) chooses not to bolster his stature by citing any off-site activity or qualification, so the seriousness of his challenges can only be measured by his contributions to this site.

He has created ample content. But the talk pages give you a perfect arena for an actual debate (especially as User:Conservative seems to have a virtual event in mind when he ushers his challenges). So, what is more natural then to look for a discussion on these talk pages to see how good a debater User:Conservative is? As I couldn't find an example of such a discussion where User:Conservative faired well, I asked him to provide me with such an example, i.e., his best shot(s) on these debate grounds.

An impressive amount of such debates would help to take User:Conservative's challenges more serious. But unfortunately User:Conservative hasn't provided me with a link yet.

Thanks, [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 14:18, 16 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 in terms of isolating the variable of religiousness/atheistic. For example, 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)
Conservative, I want to apology for my agressive behavior last week. I would be glad if we could start this over. I understand that this article does not state that all atheists are fat but it clearly imply that being an atheist give you more chance to being obese. Can you please tell me why you think we cannot compare religion and diet between different countries ?--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 19:42, 18 September 2011 (EDT)

== Some observations ==

I know that this hardly counts as a scientific study, but out of interest I went through the list of speakers at The Amazing Meeting 9, a sceptical and atheist event that was held in Las Vegas in July, and checked photos of all the speakers. To reduce the variables as much as possible I considered only American speakers, of whom there were 36. Of these, FOUR (PZ Myers, Pamela Gay, Heidi Anderson and Maria Walters) appeared to be seriously overweight or obese, and Pamela Gay is not an atheist. As a third of US adults are obese this (admittedly crude) study suggests that it is not a problem linked in any significant way to atheism. If anybody can suggest a way to look at this in more detail I'd be happy to do what I can. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 12:34, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
:::SamCoulter, for the sake of discussion lets assume that is true. With that being said, it depends on who you are comparing contemporary American atheists to. Are you comparing them to Jesus? Are you comparing the founders of the New Atheism movement to the American general public (3 out of 5 of the founders of the New Atheism movement have had problems with being overweight)? Are you comparing them to the very religious? Are you comparing them to the the bulk of Christianity which is in the non-Western World? Are you comparing them to Moses who certainly had a lot to say about diet? In any event, atheists say they believe in science and we know what science says about obesity (medical science, nutritional science and exercise science). Certainly a group of prominent atheists being prominent in the waist is an embarrassment especially since many atheists claim two things: atheism is in accordance with good science and theism is not and atheists are intellectually superior. BY the way, given that being overweight/obese is a causal factor for brain impairment, an overeweight/obese atheist claiming intellectual superiority is problematic. Lastly, since some atheists probably believe that society is evolving upward, contemporary American atheists being more overweight than mankind was in general earlier is problematic as well. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:28, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
::::No, atheists say that they DON'T believe in God. The majority of them certainly are attached to the scientific method, but then again so are the majority of western Christians. I don't think we help ourselves by misrepresenting what atheists believe. For the record I am comparing prominent American atheists to the US population in general, and it doesn't look like they're any more prone to obesity. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 13:39, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::Sam, you didn't adequately respond to my posts that atheism is more than merely not believing in God which I thought was very shoddy. Second, I cite: "Social Darwinism claims that society is evolving upward from our primitive beginnings to the point where we reach a state of utopia."[http://mnorthernlights.blogspot.com/2009/01/darwin-day-2009.html] Certainly, highly religious Bible believers do not believe in social Darwinism so time periods of atheists getting plumper are not problematic to biblical Christianity. Also, how attached are overweight/obese atheists to the scientific method? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:50, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::Atheists say that's what atheism is, and the difference between not believing in gods and denying the existence of gods is in any case more semantic than anything else: Me: "Do you deny the existence of God?" Atheist: "Yes." Me: "Why?" Atheist: "Because I don't believe in gods." Social Darwinism has nothing to do with the theory of evolution and claiming that it does just gives evolutionists an opening to attack your credibility. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 14:00, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
::Do atheists say what atheism is or do encyclopedias of philosophy? If someone says they are Napolean is he? Why is the definition more semantic than anything else and how does it affect the burden of proof as far as the existence of God? Next, where did I say Social Darwinism is the exactly the same as macroevolution? The more I interact with you and you fail to adequately respond to my questions and the material I post to you, the less worthwhile I am finding it to respond to you. Don't be surprised if I cease to respond to you. Perhaps, you should consider adequately responding to the backlog of questions I have posed to you and more adequately respond to what I have posted to you. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 14:11, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
:::My opinion is that atheists get to say what it is. Your opinion is clearly different; fine, that's your right. However if someone says "I'm an atheist," and you say "Then according to my encyclopaedia of philosophy you believe X" and he replies "Well, I don't," what does that mean? That he's lying, that he's not an atheist or that your encyclopaedia is wrong? Secondly, I never claimed that you DID say social Darwinism is exactly the same as macroevolution; I just pointed out that it has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with evolutionary theory, because it doesn't. Finally, we seem to have a different perception on whether or not I've adequately responded to your questions and again that is your right, but it's also mine. No offence, but there are some questions - such as why is this article based on a study that talks about neither atheism nor obesity - that you haven't answered too well yourself. I am NOT trying to get into a fight with you or anyone else here; I am trying to expand Conservapedia into a valuable educational resource that will turn people away from atheism and evolutionism, as are you. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 14:28, 16 September 2011 (EDT)

== Challenge for User:Conservative ==

''BY the way, given that obesity is a causal factor for brain impairment, an obese atheist claiming intellectual superiority is problematic.'' quote by [[User:Conservative]]

So now you claim there are no smart fat people. Wow, just... wow.

70 to 76% of Americans self-identify as Christian. 2-5% of Americans self-identify as atheists. 33.8% of Americans are overweight/obese. There is obviously a much greater problem within the Christian community than in the atheist community, by sheer numbers alone, yet Conservapedia turns a blind eye to this issue. It also ignores "normal weight obesity", where skinny people can be fatties without even knowing it.

You keep challenging people to debate you on atheism. Well, I'm not an atheist, and I don't know much about that subject, but I ''am'' overweight. I'm challenging you to a debate about how horribly Conservapedia treats obese people in their articles. Simple rules - written responses with one post (no edits); the topic is '''''just obesity''''', not atheism, homosexuality, evolutionism, feminism, etc. and so forth (I can't remember all the labels you've tried to slap on fat people); answers due the last Saturday of October. You can pick the moderator.

Or I'll post my phone number and you can tell me in person why you '''''flat-out ignore''''' the fat Christians or the fat creationists or the fat heterosexuals or all of the intelligent, talented , good, nice fat people who live in this country in your diatribes. I'll pay for the phone call. Whichever one you want to choose is fine with me. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 14:08, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
::::Sharon, where did a claim that there are no smart/talented/etc. overweight/obese people? I didn't and I don't think it is fair for you to misrepresent what I have written. For example, certainly it is possible in some cases for someone starting with an IQ of 200 to suffer brain impairment, yet still be smart. In terms of "intellectual superiority", it all depends on who you are comparing a person to. Plus, we really don't to what degree many health related weight problems are so Conservapedia offering material on the affects of excess weight plus various solutions for many people's problems with being overweight is a public service. I do know that in many cases the health effects of being overweight in terms of symptoms can be reversed to a large degree via weight loss. Also, given that many maladies are progressive in terms of their effects, it is better for people to be educated on the effects of being overweight sooner rather than later. Next, given that I cite responsible sources for my articles in terms of their claims such as medical journals citing research, etc., I see no reason to debate you. If you had claimed that specific statements in my articles were wrong and attempted to offer evidence to the contrary that might be different, but this is not the case plus I have used responsible sources for my articles such as medical journals citing research, etc. Lastly, thanks for the offer to have a phone discussion, but I think I will decline at this time. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 14:57, 16 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::::No, you haven't actually ''written'' the words that there are no smart/talented/etc. overweight/obese people, you have simply ''implied'' it. Reread the quote at the top of this section. Look at the articles you've written that associate obesity with things that you don't believe in. Look at the articles you've '''''not''''' written about obesity - the fact that there is an issue within the Christian community; that it's an issue among heterosexuals, etc.; that there is some debate on whether a person can be overweight and still be healthy; that thin people can also be considered to have "normal weight obesity". I haven't argued about the medical information you've provided - it's the ''application'' of that information that I'm protesting. You use "obese" as a pejorative, and that's not right. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 20:24, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
::::Sharon, I am not going to spend time addressing what I supposedly said "between the lines", implied, etc. If my critics don't want to show me where I made a mistake in what I actually wrote then so be it. Secondly, if you want to open a debate page entitled "Can a person be overweight and still be healthy?" then please be my guest. Given the massive amount of research that has been done on the effects of being overweight by the medical community and the biblical admonitions against overeating, I think you face an uphill battle but if you want to fight this battle with those who disagree with you, then so be it. Also, how can being overweight be an issue within a community as you suggest above, but still be healthy? Over in overweight means too much. If there are no adverse effects to being overweight (unhealthy to be overweight), then are they '''over'''weight? If you want to address the central issue, then I suggest you open the debate page I suggested. If you do open such a debate page, I would suggest you provide counter evidence to each of the sources I used on the effects of being overweight (effect on longevity, effects on brain function, etc. etc. etc. ). I do realize that there are health risks associated with being underweight and that health is more than just BMI/weight and that mortality does not necessarily mean quality of life (joint problems associated with being overweight, impaired brain function, etc.), but I don't think you can show me that any of the information I presented were examples of healthy lifestyles being shown as unhealthy. ([[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:14, 17 September 2011 (EDT)
Sharon, I might have used another Conservapedians claims/source about BMI rather than use my own and a responsible source seems to have been used. If I did use another Conservapedians BMI source, I used a BMI of over 25 as being overweight. Here is something I just read from a 2010 source: "After analyzing data on 1.46 million mostly white, non-Hispanic adults who participated in 19 long-term studies — each designed to follow participants for between 5 to 28 years — researchers determined that, overall, a BMI (or body mass index, a ratio of height and weight that determines overweight and obesity) between 20.0 and 24.9 was associated with the lowest risk of death in healthy non-smoking adults." [http://healthland.time.com/2010/12/03/whats-the-ideal-bmi-for-longevity] The [[Mayo Clinic]] which has a high reputation for giving sound health advice concurs with this figure. [http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/bmi-calculator/NU00597] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:12, 17 September 2011 (EDT)
:::One last thing, this is a volunteer wiki and people can within reason choose the topics of the articles they write on depending on their interests and what they feel the public might be interested in and use such things as the Conservapedia commandments in order to have a good article (cite sources, etc.). If you want to do the requisite amount of research an write good articles on topics such as [[Heterosexuality and obesity]], etc. etc. then be my guest. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:26, 18 September 2011 (EDT)

::::Actually, I'm planning two articles: [[Negative stereotypes in society and obesity]] and [[Christian and weight issues]]. The first is prevelant (see [[atheism and obesity]], with its numerous pictures of atheists, dictators, murderers, etc., and not one person who has a positive reputation with Christians], and the second is actually a greater problem than [[atheism and obesity]], given that Christians are supposed to follow the Bible's teachings, as you've pointed out. I'm sure there are numerous examples for both articles. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 11:50, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::::I did some poking around the internet. If you write the articles, I would suggest not titling an article [[Christian and weight issues]] as it does not seem to be a popular search engine search so people will not find your article. Also, based on Google suggestions, here are some more prevalent searches via the search engines if you want to write on these topics: [[Obesity stereotypes]] and [[Christian weight loss]] and [[Christian weight loss programs]]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:23, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::User:Conservative is right. To maximise viewers, you should either use search-friendly titles such as the ones he suggests, or else create links to your articles from others that will get a lot of search hits (I assume [[Atheism and obesity]] is in this category).--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:00, 19 September 2011 (EDT)

Thank you for the concern about the popularity of my proposed articles, but popularity has never been a driving force in my life.

I was going to write these articles; in fact, the one about 'Christians and weight issues' was completed on my hard-drive within hours of posting my last comment on this talk page, complete with a list of prominent/notable Christians who are overweight/obese. I was (and still am) disgusted and angry about the obesity articles that are here on CP, and CP's policy that it is an acceptable conservative/Christian practice to attack someone's appearance when the real issue is a difference in ideology. After stepping away from this issue for several days to cool down, I realized my proposed articles were exactly the same as CP's articles on obesity, and I won't lower myself to that level.

Over the years, I've dealt with mean-spirited, thoughtless, childish, inconsiderate behavior from people due to weight issues. Sometimes it is unintentional; other times, such as in these articles, it is a deliberate action.

You claim these articles are a "public service" to share information on the dangers of obesity. I say hooey to that. If that were truly the case, there would be the single, main article about [[obesity]] on CP, complete with the important information about the associated health risks, and all of these articles attempting to link obesity with atheism/evolution/homosexuality/lesbianism/feminism, etc. wouldn't exist.

I would have a lot more respect if you just came out and '''admitted''' you are using "obese" as an insult directed toward people you don't like. You know it's true, and so do I. If it wasn't deliberate, you would be willing to talk with me about the situation, as I proposed earlier, and there would be more acknowledgement in CP's articles that obesity is an issue that isn't restricted to those people with whom you disagree, but also with religious people, straight people, creationists, etc. Also, there wouldn't be "fat jokes" like 'how much wax would be needed to create an obese atheist museum' showing up on the talk pages. (By the way – ha, ha. Heaven knows I've never heard a variation of ''that'' joke before.)

Do I expect the situation to change? No. Obesity is a too-easily-applied ''ad hominem'', and it appears there is much enjoyment here on CP in using it. But you should '''''strongly''''' consider arguing the ''issues'' (atheism, homosexuality, feminism, etc. and so forth) instead of taking the easy way out and attacking the person. It's the grown-up thing to do. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 15:28, 22 September 2011 (EDT)

== Might be of interest ==

An interesting comparison of [http://blog.hunch.com/?p=48884 dietary habits]. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:26, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
:That seems like a liberal-run sight trying to make conservatives look unhealthy and unsophisticated. They way it's written appears very deceptive. [[User:RSnelik|RSnelik]] 17:38, 18 September 2011 (EDT)

A lot depends on how you define conservative. Are they for limited government which includes the United States not being the world's policeman? Are they for nation building? Are neoconservatives being counted as conservatives?

For example:
"I have always given it as my decided opinion that no nation has a right to intermeddle in the internal concerns of another; that every one has a right to form and adopt whatever government they liked best to live under themselves; and that if this country could, consistently with its engagements, maintain a strict neutrality and thereby preserve peace, it was bound to do so by motives of policy, interest, and every other consideration. - George Washington, from Letter to James Monroe, August 25,1796.

Also:
"Hence , likewise , they will avoid the necessity of those overgrown military establishments which, under any form of government are inauspicious to liberty, and which are to be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty." - George Washington

Given the size of the U.S. Federal Government deficit and some Republicans having budget deficits, it seems to me as if the "conservatives" who want the United States to have an overgrown military are not doing a lot of deep thinking plus are not very disciplined and would be more given to making poor dietary choices. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:51, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
:::Here is another point: There is no indication that Moses was fat or that kosher diets lead to obesity. Also, the "Kosher Diet is not a weight loss diet per se, but its emphasis on fruits and vegetables, fish and it's lack of...high-fat pork products...can make it an eating plan that supports healthy eating and a healthy relationship to food."[http://www.dietsinreview.com/diets/kosher-diet/] Christianity has arguably had the greatest impact on Western Civilization and Christianity is a very conservative religion that says it is the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies. The Mayo Clinic says that the Mediterranean diet is a healthy diet. [http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/mediterranean-diet/CL00011] Jesus, the carpenter and traveling preacher who was not fat, was the founder of Christianity and he ate a kosher diet probably influenced by the Mediterranean diet. Thus, while Jesus is not a conservative in the 20th century political sense, he definitely was more conservative and slimmer than overweight and obese atheists/evolutionists. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:31, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
::::Conservative, you cannot compare the diet of Jesus to the diet of 21th century evolutionnists. It is 2 different times with completely different diets. And what make you think that Jesus was conservative ? He surely had pretty modern ideas for this time.--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 19:38, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::Also, the Apostle Peter who lived in Rome, probably was not overweight either and many present day Italians incorporate a Mediterranean diet. In addition, "In Europe, Italy was the only country where average weights actually dropped, and, along with France and Switzerland, it's home to some of Europe's slimmest people on average." [http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,14818710,00.html] I think Penn Jillette needs to ask himself, "What would Jesus or Michael Sylvester Gardenzio Stallone eat?" :) Also, unlike the overweight atheist Penn Jillette, Michael Sylvester Gardenzio Stallone is known for his [[Essay: Does Richard Dawkins have machismo?|machismo]]! :) See also: [[Sye Ten Bruggencate's debate challenge to atheist Penn Jillette]] See also: [[Sye Ten Bruggencate's debate challenge to atheist Penn Jillette]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:50, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::::Conservative, for Italy, France and Switzerland are countries with very high ratio of atheists, I fail to see how this helps your cause.--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 19:55, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
Do you believe that the atheist Penn Jillette has more [[Essay: Does Richard Dawkins have machismo?|machismo]] than the conservative Christian Chuck Norris and the Italian stallion Michael Sylvester Gardenzio Stallone? See also: [[Sye Ten Bruggencate's debate challenge to atheist Penn Jillette]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:58, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
::Conservative, what does machismo have to do with obesity ?--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 20:00, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
:::Yes, I am slightly confused also. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 20:02, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::Atheists and liberals often have great difficulty understanding the concept of [[Essay: Does Richard Dawkins have machismo?|machismo]]. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:06, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::Well I am neither and I fail to see the relevance to this discussion. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 20:07, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
::::"I like [[John McCain|McCain]] a lot. A lot. The script that's being written - and the reality - is pretty brutal and pretty hard-edged like a rough action film, and you need somebody who's been in that to deal with it." - Michael Sylvester Gardenzio Stallone [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:26, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::I'm sorry? I still don't understand. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 20:30, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::And Michael Sylvester Gardenzio Stallone eats a lot of fish, just like Jesus and the Apostle Peter did. :) [http://www.howcelebsgetfit.com/sylvester-stallone-fitness-training-exercise-and-diet-plan/] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:33, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::Why are you obsessed with Stallone today? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 20:40, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
Michael Sylvester Gardenzio Stallone certainly has his faults, but given that he incorporates aspects of the Mediterranean diet, he probably generally eats more like Jesus and the Apostle Peter does than the overweight atheist Penn Jillette who professes to respect science. :) I thought medical science, exercise science, and nutritional science were all part of science. :) And of course, the fit Stallone has more [[Essay: Does Richard Dawkins have machismo?|machismo]] than the overweight atheist Penn Jillette. :) See also: [[Sye Ten Bruggencate's debate challenge to atheist Penn Jillette]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]]
:Yes of course, because Italian cuisine - with its prosciutto, cotoletta, Tyrolische Speck, parma ham, cotechini, salami and wide range of meat dishes in a cream or cheese sauce is JUST LIKE the kosher diet of a 1st Century Judean. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 09:12, 19 September 2011 (EDT)
::Stallone was born in America. But I still can't see your point. Do you know that there are a lot of atheist in southern Europe who have a Mediterranean diet ?--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 22:10, 18 September 2011 (EDT)

Pat Tillman didn't lack machismo; neither did Bruce Lee. Lance Armstrong won seven Tour de France races. George Clooney is very popular with the ladies. All were/are atheists. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 22:02, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
:Bruce Lee '''definitely''' had machismo! Stallone became a catholic in 1996. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:04, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
::::[[Bruce Lee|Did he]]? By the way, "...it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment." - Hebrews 9:27 [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:07, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::What does that mean ?--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 22:12, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
:::: Stallone also took a lot of human growth hormone and was nearly charged for having it in Australia. Hardly a Biblical diet. [[User:Aortuso|Aortuso]] 22:05, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
As I indicated above, "Michael Sylvester Gardenzio Stallone certainly has his faults". With that being said, who does you think is in better health: Stallone or the overweight atheist Penn Jillette? Who do you think took better care of their health: Jesus or the overweight atheist Penn Jillette? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:23, 19 September 2011 (EDT)
:::Probably hard to tell when basing on mere looks. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 00:29, 19 September 2011 (EDT)
::Interesting fact: Penn Jillette is NOT the only atheist in the world. Why would you keep focusing on him ? Why don't you talk about other atheists like Bruce Lee Lance Armstrong or any of the multitude of fit atheists (like me for example) ?--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 00:28, 19 September 2011 (EDT)
Penn Jillette is not the only atheist in the world, but he makes up for it in weight. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:04, 19 September 2011 (EDT)
::Wow, that's a pretty good argument!--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 01:07, 19 September 2011 (EDT)

== You know, ==

the debate [[Talk:Atheism and obesity/Archive1#factual|here]] was never finished--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 21:56, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
:::I did respond. Have you contacted your representatives yet? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:59, 18 September 2011 (EDT)

== Minor typo ==

My apologies if I'm focusing too much on minor details, but I read this page after noticing it came up in Recent Changes, and I found a ''very'' minor grammatical error. In the Atheism and Health section, a comma is missing, as indicated here:

<blockquote>
In the journal article ''Religion, self-regulation, and self-control: Associations, explanations, and implications'' '''(comma should go here)''' psychologists McCullough and Willoughby theorize that many of the positive links of religiousness with health and social behavior may be caused by religion's beneficial influences on self-control/self-regulation
</blockquote>

As I said, it's a minor issue, but as a professional writer, it's the sort of thing I notice. Thank you very much! [[User:KevinDavis|Kevin Davis]] [[User talk:KevinDavis|Talk]] 23:05, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
:I just noticed that I myself had a minor typo in my above post, and I apologize. I meant "notice" instead of "noticed." Thank you! [[User:KevinDavis|Kevin Davis]] [[User talk:KevinDavis|Talk]] 23:06, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
:::Thanks. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:19, 19 September 2011 (EDT)
::::Thank you for correcting it! [[User:KevinDavis|Kevin Davis]] [[User talk:KevinDavis|Talk]] 23:07, 22 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::I am certainly a fool, and I'm still growing accustomed to Mediawiki's syntax. When I saw the difference link in my watchlist, I saw that the comment was outside the <nowiki>''</nowiki>, and I mistook those for quotes. Thus, my previous comment is irrelevant. Thanks! [[User:KevinDavis|Kevin Davis]] [[User talk:KevinDavis|Talk]] 23:07, 22 September 2011 (EDT)

== Reasonable debate offer ==

I wanted remove my offer from the cowardice talkpage because it is getting off-topic and people don't seem very genuine over there. Conservative has been talking a lot about how people (atheists I believe) won't debate him and are too scared to debate in general - I think that's what he is saying anyway, he can be a bit...confusing at times. I am not an atheist nor do I really know anything about science so having a debate about the existence of God or evolution is pointless. But I am willing to debate him on the topic of Atheism and Obesity. We can have a written debate right here on Conservapedia at an agreed upon time. If/When Conservative accepts this we can work out any further rules if required. If Conservative can let me know and if he declines I'd like a reason why that doesn't consist of a non-sequitar. Thanks, [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 18:00, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
:Hello? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 20:23, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
:::I still think you are an atheist and evolutionist and you know [[Talk:Cowardice|my policy about debating obscure atheist rather than non-obscure atheist.]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:59, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
::::I am '''not''' an atheist and your continued denial of my faith is extremely offensive. I have given you no reason to think I am so please desist in your remarks. My debate offer is very reasonable. Why will you not accept it? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 21:05, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::Max, I respect your good faith attempts to engage User:Conservative in debate, but it should be more than obvious to you, and everyone else, that User:Conservative does not intend to enter into a formal debate with anyone on any subject. As should be obvious from his articles and correspondences, User:Conservative does not appear interested in enlightening his audience or winning support for his worldview. No, quite clearly, his end goal is to ridicule and frustrate his ideological and philosophical enemies. He achieves this by continually bragging about his undefeated debating track record, yet never provides any proof or evidence his memory on this matter is accurate and correct. He issues challenges to those he knows will never accept his offer. Yet in turn sets up prerequisites that are impossible to satisfy for those who are willing to debate him. All previous offers to debate User:Conservative have met with one of the following responses:
:::::*Declined because the opponent is too "obscure" or not "prominent" enough.
:::::*Declined because the opponent would not meet his arcane list of demands.
:::::*Declined because his eventual victory is assured.
:::::*Ignored, then treated the requester to one of his world famous non-sequitur answers.(popular)
:::::*Ignored, no response given.
:::::*Ignored, offending offer deleted and burned.

:::::That's about it. That is all you can ever hope to get. Why? Because he's not interested in sharing, comparing, and contrasting ideas in a thoughtful manner. Nope, he just wants to ridicule and frustrate people. There's a word for that... rhymes with roll... mole? coal? Anyway, good luck. --[[User:SteveK|SteveK]] 01:04, 29 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::Pardon the puns, but I am only interested in debating the "big cheeses" within the atheist community and not the "small fries". :) I challenged the overweight atheist [[Penn Jillette]] to debate me, but he ran away which no doubt caused him to be out of breathe. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:46, 22 January 2012 (EST)
SteveK, I just found out that John J. Pasquini, Th.D., cited my Conservapedia [[atheism]] articles three times in his book'' Atheist Persona: Causes and Consequences'' (the book has 77 footnotes and cites Conservapedia atheism articles in footnotes 34, 64 and 67).[http://books.google.com/books?id=OMRhAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA24&lpg=PA24&dq=conservapedia+atheism&source=bl&ots=XoulnSQ90x&sig=_1xyC3wiZtD9ihYXVljTugA2tGk&hl=en&sa=X&ei=pL_3U72vB4r6oQTGg4HwCQ&ved=0CGsQ6AEwCTgK#v=onepage&q=conservapedia%20atheism&f=false] The book was favorably reviewed by [[Michael Behe]] (a leading proponent of [[intelligent design]] theory), [[Paul Vitz]] and [[Michael Egnor]] (also a proponent of intelligent design) and was published by the academic publisher University Press of America.[http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/atheist-persona-john-j-pasquini/1117916966?ean=9780761863328] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:19, 24 August 2014 (EDT)

==Bad Info==

The info on this page seems to be inaccurate, recent studies show that religious people are around 50% more likely to be obese than non believers, or at least non worshipers. Furthermore obesity occurrences in the United States seem to be centered around the Bible Belt and more Christian-Conservative States. Perhaps instead of criticizing other groups we should begin a campaign to educate fellow Christians and help people make healthier choices in their life. In my opinion, not taking care of your body is a sin, I think we should strive to make people healthier and perhaps start a campaign such as the successful [[Question Evolution Campaign]]. Source: http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700124603/Study-finds-link-between-religion-obesity.html Gelatin
::First of all, you misread your own source. Second, the shortcomings of the NorthWestern study have been discussed on this talk page. Third, as far as geographical area you are talking about, you haven't discussed other variables and last time I checked we still live in a multiple variable world. I suggest reading some books on statistics and improving your reading comprehension skills. Lastly, we really don't have any reliable reports of Moses, Elijah, Jesus or the Apostles Paul and Peter being overweight and I would be hard pressed to find more religious people than these very religious biblical figures. On the other hand, I certainly did show quite a few atheist leaders who have had weight challenges despite the fact that medical science, nutritional science and exercise science offers a host of solutions on a maintaining healthy weight. But just to make sure you are not a typical atheist denialist, has the [[New Atheism]] leadership had significant problems with being overweight? Has the [[American Atheists]] organization had significant problems with its leaders being overweight? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:36, 27 October 2011 (EDT)
:::Do you have any reports of Moses, Elijah etc NOT being overweight? As the only contemporary references we have to most of the prophets are in books the wrote themselves I don't think this is an argument I'd like to defend. --[[User:HarryPagett|HarryPagett]] 13:16, 21 December 2011 (EST)
[[File:70810564 64d3a67932.jpg|left|200px|thumb|Harry, Moses delivered to the Israel the Mosaic law. I believe that eating kosher is healthy. Ultra-orthodox Jews don't seem to have a problem with excess weight.]]
{{clear}}
I just find it interesting that we would concern ourselves with the incidence of obesity in atheists, as this seems rather non-sequitor. Why not look at things that are more related to faith and morality such as crime rates (http://current.com/community/92831935_atheists-supply-less-than-1-of-prison-populations-while-christians-make-up-75.htm) (http://www.pitzer.edu/academics/faculty/zuckerman/Zuckerman_on_Atheism.pdf) or sexual morality (http://spq.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/73/1/33) or racism and ethnocentrism (http://www.pitzer.edu/academics/faculty/zuckerman/Zuckerman_on_Atheism.pdf) even intelligence would be more telling than obesity (http://spq.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/73/1/33) [[User:CatholicBill]]

:As I understand it, the argument is that obesity is itself linked to most of these factors. For sexual morality, see [[Homosexuality and obesity]]. For intelligence, see the oft-made point that obese individuals may be ignoring scientific research into diet and exercise. For ethnocentricity, one might perhaps suggest that obese atheists are ignoring healthy ethnic foods such as brown rice and mung beans (should this be added to the article?). So you see, it's not that those issues are excluded, it's that effort is made to cover as many issues as possible, as amply as possible. The expansive obsesity writings enable anti-atheist fingers to be dipped into many pies.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 11:41, 21 December 2011 (EST)
::Is this a bad time to point out that dipping fingers in pies is likely to lead to obesity? :-) --[[User:HarryPagett|HarryPagett]] 13:20, 21 December 2011 (EST)
::::::User: CatholicBill, the article is about atheism and obesity - not crime statistics. It is certainly no crime to overeat or be overweight. Please stick to the topic of the article. Be that as it may: [http://creation.com/atheism#incarceration HERE is some crime statistics in relation to no-religion people you are failing to bring up.] As far as your other "arguments", you are failing to recognize that we live in a multi-variable world. For example, if affluence is related to atheism because people get "fat and sassy" (rebellious) towards God when their wallet is fuller then that would certainly affect IQ levels since their is a correlation between wealth and IQ. By the way, if atheists are so smart, then why did the Soviet Union fall? :) Lastly, the atheist community could take much of the wind out of the sails of this article simply by losing weight which is easy to do if you comply with what nutritional science, exercise science and medical science say to do. Atheists purport to love science so this should be quite easy to do if their purported love of science is genuine. So instead of kvetching about this article, I suggest that the atheist community get more serious about applying the health sciences within their community. If you are an atheist, next time you feel tempted to eat a Whopper ask yourself "What would Jesus eat?" According to the [[Mayo Clinic]] the Mediterranean diet/lifestyle (which is what Jesus ate/did) is quite healthy and compatible with weight loss.[http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/mediterranean-diet/CL00011] For example, Jesus no doubt ate figs and figs are a "sweet way to lose weight" or maintain a healthy weight.[http://www.whfoods.com/genpage.php?tname=foodspice&dbid=24#healthbenefits] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:18, 22 January 2012 (EST)

==Ad Hominem Abusive==

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)
:::::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)
::::::I hadn't noticed the others, thanks for the heads up. Shall I remove this section? It seems unnecessary. --[[User:Swinefish|Swinefish]] 23:07, 3 November 2011 (EDT)
:::::::You can leave it. You redefining a fallacy and it being pointed out was useful. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:31, 4 November 2011 (EDT)

== Other countries plus America's culture which is historically more car centered ==

:Rather contrary to the rather limited 'studies' that this article bases its claims off, I think it'd be most logical to conclude that atheism is inversely proportional to obesity, when you consider the USA has one of the highest (if not the highest) obesity rates in the Western world, and also happens to be the most religious.
Where do most Christians reside in the world? The East or the West? Are people in the East thinner? Do you have any large studies comparable to the Gallup study in size which isolate the religious variable in relation to health habits and/or obesity? More importantly, do you have any large studies comparable to the Gallup study in size which isolates the variable of religiousness in relation to health habits and/or obesity and measures the "Very religious". The reason I ask these questions is that we know the major variables of income, education and race affect how people eat/exercise.

In addition, we know that America is the birth place of large scale automobile manufacturing ([[Henry Ford]] and Ford Motor Company) plus has had federal/state public policy pushing the interstate highways and suburbia (Also, America had white flight out of the cities and into the suburbs).[http://www.skidmore.edu/academics/roads/TRANSCRIPT.html] So it comes as no big surprise that America has a very automobile centered culture and has less of a bicycle/walking culture than many Western nations (bike lanes and bike paths, etc). Of course, this has a significant negative impact on the amount of exercise in America and adds to obesity.[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19164816][http://policy.rutgers.edu/faculty/pucher/jpah08.pdf]

Next, to make sure you are not an atheist denialist, did a significant number of the New Atheism founders (and [[PZ Myers]]} have a significant problem with being overweight? See: [[New Atheism leadership's problem with excess weight]] Similarly, does/did a significant number of the board of directors of the [[American Atheists]] organization have a problem with being overweight? See: [[Atheism and obesity]] Also, does [[Penn Jillette]] have a problem with being overweight?

In short, your analysis was far too simplistic and suffered as a result. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:53, 31 March 2012 (EDT)
:::By the way, thanks for reminding me about this article. I just added [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/8106603.stm another picture citation] to the [[Atheism and obesity]] article. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:29, 1 April 2012 (EDT)
::::Addendum: I added a few pictures that further illustrate the issue of atheism and obesity and/or the problems associated with atheist obesity. For example, atheist [[PZ Myers]]' difficulty ascending and descending the dinosaur model at the [[Creation Museum]] due to the fact that he was overweight and out of shape.[http://conservapedia.com/Atheism_and_obesity#PZ_Myers.27_visit_to_the_Creation_Museum] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:06, 1 April 2012 (EDT)

== Form follows function ==

Or in this case - the form reflects the content: it is just messy:
*there are two sections above the TOC
*the references/notes are a mess: generally each should show which source is quoted. That's helpful for the reader when he ponders whether the link is worth following...
*having a separate section for each atheist is messy and clutters the TOC - especially as those section sometimes only state the name.
*it is a pain to read: e.g, the phrase ''in addition'' pops up a dozen times...

The whole subject is ridiculous, but User:Conservative, when you are spending so much time micro-managing it, couldn't you try to improve its outfit and readability? Thanks, [[User:AugustO|AugustO]]

:For those in a hurry, I have condensed some of the essential info about individuals into a [[Gallery of obese atheists|gallery page]]. They do say that a picture is worth a thousand words. Could a link from this page be added?--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:08, 20 June 2012 (EDT)

== Comment for User:Conservative ==

I must commend you for all your work tying fat people to atheism/homosexuality/etc., etc. Too bad you don't spend your time trying to help both sectors (obese people and atheists) by showing compassion and God's love rather than disdain and mockery.

True witnessing for God doesn't consist of putting people down because you dislike them for either their appearance (obese people - you obviously have an issue with them) or their beliefs (atheists).

How many people do you truly think you've brought to God with your writings? As an obese Christian, I know you've offended me with your attempts to link obesity with everything you hate, and I doubt that disbelievers would feel any less offended. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 11:11, 29 June 2012 (EDT)

Edited to add: Quite frankly, your writings make me feel toward you the same way as I have ever felt toward the bullies I've encountered in my real life. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 11:36, 29 June 2012 (EDT)
=== Response of User: Conservative ===
Sharon, above are discussions about atheism and obesity.

As far as [[Homosexuality and obesity]] among other things I cited this:

"The journalist [[Peter LaBarbera]] wrote:

The National Youth Risk Behavior Surveys are given to high schoolers, and the Centers for Disease Control looked at the data from 2001 to 2009 in the states of Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Vermont, Wisconsin and the cities of Boston, Chicago, Milwaukee, New York City, San Francisco and San Diego, locales where the schools permitted questions about homosexual identity/behavior, which isn’t always the case in less “progressive” areas.

Teens who called themselves “gay, lesbian or bisexual,” or who were unsure, as well as those who didn’t use those labels but had sexual contact only with same-sex people or with both sexes, were found to be more likely than heterosexually identified students to engage in seven out of the 10 risk behavior categories. These were: 1) behaviors that contribute to violence; 2) behaviors related to attempted suicide; 3) tobacco use; 4) alcohol use; 5) other drug use; 6) sexual behaviors; and 7) weight management. (emphasis added)"[http://americansfortruth.com/2011/06/24/wrong-diagnosis-wrong-cure-harvey-assails-cdcs-pro-gay-youth-spin/#more-9505]

You may disagree with me, but I think the [[Centers for Disease Control]] is a valid source to use in this instance. I am not saying the CDC is perfect, but nevertheless I don't have a problem with citing them in this instance. I also have no problem citing a conservative journalist who formerly worked for a leading newspaper and a conservative organization.

Also, today I added some health/fitness information on weight loss plus some additional information from responsible sources. I don't see why an encyclopedia should refrain from offering useful/valid information. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:42, 29 June 2012 (EDT)

::I disagree with the tone of your writings, yes. Please explain to me how [http://conservapedia.com/Gallery_of_obese_atheists this] helps anyone? Does it draw people closer to God's word? Does it show God's love? Or does it show pettiness instead? It's certainly not funny, or educational, or loving in any way. But then again, I guess you don't claim to be witnessing, do you? What exactly is the purpose behind the linking of obesity to everything you hate? Are you even ''trying'' to convert anyone? --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 14:07, 29 June 2012 (EDT)
::::I don't see us agreeing on the topics of obesity and atheism/homosexuality anytime soon. But I know I did cite relevant sources such as the [[Centers for Disease Control]]/Peter LaBarbera (see above) and [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=17463369&ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum this Pubmed material]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 14:48, 29 June 2012 (EDT)

:::::No, I doubt that I'll ever think bullying behavior toward obese people is the correct way to act. And I notice you totally fail to answer my questions - why? You accuse people of being cowards when they fail to answer your questions. Maybe you ought to take a good, long look in the mirror. Don't flatter yourself that you win when you avoid answering. I've challenged you before about having a debate over the treatment Conservapedia deals out toward fat people. Care to take me up on it? --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 15:09, 29 June 2012 (EDT)

== Other commentary ==

You won't see Jesus, Moses, Apostle Paul or the Apostle Peter in your list. They pretty much ate a Mosaic diet or Mediterranean diet employing reasonable portions and had sufficient exercise.
::Conveniently, there doesn't exist any portraits of these people that were done from life, so you're making an assumption here. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 15:29, 29 June 2012 (EDT)

Here are some interesting articles on weight loss and maintaining a healthy weight:

*[http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/mediterranean-diet/CL00011 Mediterranean diet] by [[Mayo Clinic]]
*[http://www.motleyhealth.com/fitness/how-much-exercise-is-needed-to-get-fit-and-lose-weight How much exercise is needed to get fit and lose weight]
*[http://www.bbc.co.uk/health/treatments/healthy_living/fitness/daily_howmuch.shtml Exercise: How much? - BBC News]
*[http://www.acsm.org/about-acsm/media-room/news-releases/2011/08/01/acsm-issues-new-recommendations-on-quantity-and-quality-of-exercise American College of Sports Medicine]

My thoughts on this matter agree with this material: [[Chuck Norris on the topic of obesity]]

I have met people from various parts of the world and there is far less obesity in the [[Eastern World]] than in many parts of the [[Western World]] and I think the reason is that they eat better, get more exercise and are often more disciplined. Also, Asian Americans generally lead more healthy lives too than many westerners. I have a feeling that Amy Chua doesn't allow her kid(s) to eat a lot of snacks and watch a lot of television. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:31, 29 June 2012 (EDT)
:Non sequitur. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 16:00, 29 June 2012 (EDT)

:''You won't see Jesus, Moses, Apostle Paul or the Apostle Peter in your list.'' No, the list doesn't imply that all Christians are obese! Do you think that there are only fat atheists?
:It seems that your belief is just one amongst a lot more influential factors when it comes to personal appearance.
:[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 03:27, 30 June 2012 (EDT)
::AugustO, the Mosaic diet does not lead to obesity. See the [https://www.google.com/search?q=ultra-orthodox+jews&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=91idU-PwH8OzyASG1IGgBw&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAQ&biw=1024&bih=504 Google image search for ultra-orthodox Jews] Slim! Jesus, Moses, Elijah, Peter, and Paul were slim! I rest my case! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 04:29, 15 June 2014 (EDT)

== Richard Dawkins ==

Im surprised Richard Dawkins wasn;t there. Then again, it makes sense. The entire essay revolves around a fictional premise that atheists are obese in comparison to Christians.[[User:Brenden|brenden]] 16:04, 29 June 2012 (EDT)
:Isn't Richard Dawkins an agnostic? It is rather humorous that a founder of the [[New Atheism]] movement was an agnostic. :) Also, didn't 3/5 of the New Atheism movmement's founders have excess weight? See: [[New Atheism leadership's problem with excess weight]]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:19, 29 June 2012 (EDT)

== Seriously? ==

User:Conservative - you have once again deleted a comment of mine. It was not offensive, nor was it trolling. I request that you please restore it. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 16:22, 29 June 2012 (EDT)
::The brief discussion was pointless and was only going to lead to bickering. I have decided to move on. I will say for the record that I didn't initially create [[Essay: Gallery of obese atheists|the gallery]] nor did I add any pictures of new people. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:28, 29 June 2012 (EDT)
:::Do try to remember that you had to delete and oversight our "brief discussion" the next time you want to call someone a coward. And yes, while you didn't initially create ''this'' gallery, you are the only one on this site obsessed with creating all of the "Conservapedia hates fat people" articles - you know the ones where you say fat people are atheists, lesbians, homosexuals, blah, blah, blah. You pretend you're being helpful by providing the links to diets, etc., but the disdainful language surrounding the links trumps them. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 16:55, 29 June 2012 (EDT)
:::::For the record, I have never said that all overweight people are atheists or lesbians/homosexuals nor have I said that CP hates overweight people.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:01, 29 June 2012 (EDT)
::::::But you do not deny deleting and oversighting a discussion you had with SharonW. As she says, please remember that next time you throw out an accusation of cowardice or unwillingness to debate. I know that all those you make the accusation against certainly will. [[User:Davidspencer|Davidspencer]] 17:07, 29 June 2012 (EDT)
:::::::David, if you want to accuse me of cowardice despite my offers to debate prominent atheists/evolutionists, I am not particularly concerned. If you are a fan of the agnostic/evolutionist [[Richard Dawkins]] or [[Penn Jillette]] or fan of any other prominent evolutionists or atheists, I would encourage you to ask them to engage in written debate with me. For example, feel free to contact Dawkins about this open debate offer: [[Essay: Debate challenge for Richard Dawkins]]. My material has been read by a lot of people and given the current decline of [[global atheism]] and global agnosticism which is expected to accelerate and the decline of American evolutionism in the last 17 months [http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/06/american-young-earth-creationism.html], they clearly need to do something if the care about their religions. But if they want to fiddle while [[Essay: Penn Jillette, don't just stand there! Do something!|global atheism/agnosticism/evolutionism burns]] that is fine with me. My fellow Bible believing Christians and I have no problem roasting hot dogs and marshmellows (in moderation of course) on the bonfire of global atheism/agnosticism/evolutionism burning. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:02, 29 June 2012 (EDT)
Addendum: As far as oversighting a few sentences of material because I didn't want to be dragged into the ridiculous debate of whether Jesus was overweight, I have no regrets. Being charged with cowardice about the matter was rather humorous though. In retrospect, it was definitely one of the most humorous things to occur on CP. Jesus was a carpenter before the days of power tools and then he became a traveling preacher/prophet who did a lot of walking. Plus, he lived in the Middle East about 2,000 years ago and ate a healthy Mosaic diet. I very much doubt anyone is going to give someone an extended debate about this matter. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:07, 30 June 2012 (EDT)
::::::::Way to go once again with a strawman. You know nothing about me but because I point out that you removed a comment to prevent debate, whilst accusing others of cowardice of when they do not reply to your invitations on this site to debate, you feel free to make unfounded and unsupported assertions about me. But we all know that is your modus operandi and my pointing it out will not change anything will it? Incidentally, can you point me to a shop where I can but marshmellows, I rather fancy trying some roasted. [[User:Davidspencer|Davidspencer]] 02:09, 30 June 2012 (EDT)
::::::::::Silly! You get them in the Mellow Marshes. Obviously. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 02:52, 30 June 2012 (EDT)
:I don't want to indulge [[User:Conservative]] any more than I absolutely have to, but making a claim about an individual's diet 2000 years ago based on (what appear to be) cultural norms is fallacious and entirely speculative. For one, my guess would be that polytheists, in general, would also have a similar diet. By your argument, Christians are obese because Christian Americans eat fatty food (see the gallery above). [[User:GregG|GregG]] 00:12, 30 June 2012 (EDT)
:I forgot to add that it's really not fair to compare average weights of people in societies over 2000 years old (when starvation and food production are major issues) and today (where we have significantly increased our food production capacity; very few first-world people are starving to death). [[User:GregG|GregG]] 00:14, 30 June 2012 (EDT)
Greg, I have some modern pictures of ultra-orthodox Jews to offer as evidence that the Mosaic diet does not lead to obesity. See the [https://www.google.com/search?q=ultra-orthodox+jews&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=91idU-PwH8OzyASG1IGgBw&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAQ&biw=1024&bih=504 Google image search for ultra-orthodox Jews] Slim! Jesus, Moses, Elijah, Peter, and Paul were slim! I rest my case! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 04:49, 15 June 2014 (EDT)
::GregG, why don't you ask [[William Lane Craig]] to debate someone on this topic. If he thinks it is a serious topic, I am sure he will hold a debate on this matter. I hope you will forgive me for saying this, but I have my doubts Craig is going to hold a debate about this topic. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:34, 30 June 2012 (EDT)

Good grief, Conservative - you were blathering on about nobody wanting to buy a picture of a fat Jesus, and I pointed out that people buy pictures of Jesus portrayed as blond, blue-eyed Caucasian all the time, and that I doubted that Jesus actually looked like that. Those were the comments you over-sighted. There was no argument about whether or not Jesus was fat - I just pointed out that ''you can't possibly know for certain''. I have offered to debate you about your treatment of obese people, and you have refused. You are the one who accuses people of cowardice over not debating. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 01:00, 30 June 2012 (EDT)
::A general message to all re: the [[Atheism and obesity]] article:

::I have not had a campaign against overweight people in general.

::I merely pointed out the obesity in the atheist, homosexual and lesbian populations in the Western World. I also pointed out that atheists pretend to love science and science gives us abundance information on how to lose weight and the negative effects of being overweight. Workout an hour or more a day (strength training and aerobic exercise) and eat a sensible diet (reasonable amount of fruits and vegetables or Mediterranean diet or Zone diet, low glycemic foods, etc.) and the vast majority of people will lose the weight and keep it off with a reasonable amount of maintenance exercise. I provided all the information on how to lose weight and keep it off via a healthy lifestyle.

::I also pointed out that in 2005, there were 4 times as many Eastern World Christians as Western World Christians (and that Eastern World people have healthier lifestyles in general) and there is a significant amount of data indicating that the very religious in America live healthier lifestyles than others in America. Plus, I gave sound research indicating that religion in the West tends to increase self-discipline (all other things remaining equal of course).

::In addition, I pointed out that there seems to be a higher incidence of obesity within the homosexual population and provided sound evidence. Most homosexuals are liberals and liberals purport to love science so I don't see why this is not fair to point out.

::I also pointed out that people cannot reasonably claim that Jesus, Moses, Peter and the Apostle Paul were overweight. For example, there are several Bible passages against gluttony and sloth. The Bible is definitely not friendly to gluttony and sloth. Given that many Western atheists presently scoff at how superior their ideology is over a biblical worldview this is certainly fair to point out.

::I realize that the Western World has become prosperous and history teaches us that prosperity in a culture can lead to complacency and those cultures declining/falling. As a result, advocating self-discipline is not going to be a popular idea among many at the present time. Recently, [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bqeeFhnlHvk a book came out] essentially saying that overweight people in general need to be more self-disciplined, personally responsible and more mentally tough and if memory serves he ignited caller complaints after his public appearances (By the way, the author is an ex overweight guy and it appears he is a libertarian atheist or at least anti-Bible).

::Lastly, as far as the [[Overweight atheists comedy and satire]], atheists (and liberals) sure seem willing to dish out satire, but I have noticed that they can dish it out, but they can't take it. Could atheist pride be the issue? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:11, 30 June 2012 (EDT)

:::I was wondering [[User:Conservative|Conservative]]. You quite rightly, in my opinion, have a dislike of obese people - especially atheists. Are you willing to reveal the weight of the collective known as [[User:Conservative|Conservative]]? Personally I am 5 foot 10 inches and weigh (currently) 14 stone. What do you (and/or your respective contributors) weigh. If you are unwilling to reveal the number of members of your collective (a somewhat socialist concept I must say) then an average weight will do if you are willing to provide it. [[User:Davidspencer|Davidspencer]] 10:42, 30 June 2012 (EDT)
[[File:Sun Tzu portrait.jpg|thumbnail|right|200px|"Subtle! Subtle! They become formless. Mysterious! Mysterious! They become soundless. Therefore, they are the masters of the enemy's fate." - [[Sun Tzu]] ]]
::::David, do you understand the difference between fact and opinion? You certainly have provided no proof and evidence that I/we dislike obese people - none! :) Secondly, within reason people rightly like others who stick to their guns on matters and prior to User:Conservative's material on obesity and the atheism/homosexuality, User: Conservative did say that no identifying information would be give on us/me. :) Of course, it goes without saying that this policy will continue. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:08, 30 June 2012 (EDT)

:::::Maybe not "dislike", as "determined to constantly and consistently portray in as negative a manner as possible" with as many links to things you ''do'' dislike. I personally don't see much difference. [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 09:47, 2 July 2012 (EDT)

===Biblical position===
Is the Bible really so strongly against overeating, as [[user:Conservative]] says?

Jesus only discusses the topic once, in Matthew Chapter 11 (and also as recounted in Luke), where he addresses accusations, presumably made by those killjoy Pharisees, that ''he himself'' was a glutton. He doesn't seem remotely troubled by the accusations, does not bother to deny or refute them, and seems to say that it doesn't really matter whether one chooses to be abstemious (like John the Baptist) or indulgent (like the Son of Man).

So I don't think [[user:Conservative]]'s claim that "[t]he Bible is definitely not friendly to gluttony" really gives the whole story. And I would rather agree with Jesus than with the Pharisees, who presumably also thought there was a biblical basis for their own misguided finger-wagging.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 05:02, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
:::CPalmer, as you are probably aware, the Apostle Paul declared: "All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;" (2 Timothy 3:16). Accordingly, when it comes to the issues of gluttony and sloth, these portions of the Bible also need to be taken into account: Old Testament (such as Proverbs), the words of the Apostle Paul and the Apostle Peter and any other Bible verses on this matter. Christians should not inadvertently or intentionally employ the [[fallacy of exclusion]] when informing themselves on these issues. Here are some verses in the Bible on gluttony: [http://www.openbible.info/topics/gluttony Biblical teaching on gluttony]. Biblical teaching on laziness/sloth: http://codybateman.wordpress.com/2006/09/10/laziness-introduction-and-bible-study-guide/

:::In addition, it would be unwise for Christians to ignore what medical science and other disciplines of science indicate on these matters. (see: [[Physical and mental health related problems associated with obesity]]). Besides the obvious benefit of feeling better and having more energy and thus getting more done through avoiding the besetting sins of gluttony and sloth (Paul did command Christians to be good stewards and to make the most of their time), preventative medicine is often better than treating illness after the fact.

:::I realize that working out and eating right are not always fun and require self-discipline. But like most things in life, in most cases, it merely requires replacing bad habits with good habits. The reason why many diets fail is that people never establish a healthy lifestyle via establishing good habits. In addition, people can do things to make exercise more fun or productive (music, audio books, etc.).
[[File:Hong Kong Christians at Gateway Camp.jpg|thumbnail|right|250px|[[Hong Kong]] Christians at Gateway Camp. In 2005, there were four times as many non-Western World Christians as there were [[Western World]] Christians.[http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=30077]
 
(photo obtained from [http://www.flickr.com/photos/mckln/4815046728/in/set-72157624550425162 Flickr], see [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/2.0/deed.en license agreement])]]

:::Next, I do think that Christians need to be informed about church history plus not have a myopic view of the world. In many cases, it could be argued that at the present time the Western World church is behaving like the undisciplined Church at Corinth which the Apostle Paul had to correct.[http://www.churchleaders.com/?news=139580/] Let's not forget, there are plenty of Christians in the world who are living healthy lifestyles and avoiding the sins of gluttony and sloth. See: [[Global Christianity]]

:::Lastly, there are certainly self-disciplined Christians in the West and no doubt some of them were a part of the Gallup survey and other social science data (see: [[Atheism and obesity]]). For example, in the journal article ''Religion, self-regulation, and self-control: Associations, explanations, and implications'', psychologists McCullough and Willoughby theorize that many of the positive links of religiousness with health and social behavior may be caused by religion's beneficial influences on [[self-control]]/self-regulation.[http://www.psy.miami.edu/faculty/mmccullough/Papers/Relig_self_control_bulletin.pdf][http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19210054] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:20, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
::::I see you are siding with the Pharisees, then.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 12:03, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
::::Here are the questions that I think you need to consider. They are in two groups, one focusing on Jesus' position, and one on that of the Pharisees:
::::'''JESUS:''' Do you agree that Jesus seems to say that gluttony isn't really a big deal in Matthew 11? You seem to think that it is a big deal - are you therefore saying that Jesus was wrong? Or is it more important now than it was - if Jesus was on earth nowadays and was accused of being a glutton, do you think he would deny the accusation more vigorously? Or would Jesus, if on earth today, follow a strict diet so that the accusation would not be made? Why did he not do so in the first century?

::::'''PHARISEES:''' One way the Pharisees attacked Jesus was by calling him a glutton. Do you think they were right or justified to do so? How do your accusations of gluttony, used to attack atheists and homosexuals, differ from the Pharisees' attacks on Jesus, if at all? What do you think was the Pharisees' basis for being against gluttony? Would it have been scriptural? Would it have been justified? How would it have differed, if at all, from your own scriptural basis? Is it possible that you have followed the same process as the Pharisees in arriving at your own views about gluttony?--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 08:16, 3 July 2012 (EDT)
CPalmer, the Mosaic diet does not lead to obesity. See the [https://www.google.com/search?q=ultra-orthodox+jews&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=91idU-PwH8OzyASG1IGgBw&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAQ&biw=1024&bih=504 Google image search for ultra-orthodox Jews] Slim! Jesus, Moses, Elijah, Peter, and Paul were slim! I rest my case! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 04:29, 15 June 2014 (EDT)

==Article Structure==
This article seems a bit overly complex in its structure. When there are 54 sections in the contents bar, it seems to me that some of these could be merged or deleted without changing the overall flow of the article too much. I don't intend to make any particular changes, because certain admins seem to have a lot of effort invested in this article, and I'd rather not irritate people higher up the food chain than me, but that's my opinion at this point.--[[User:DTSavage|DTSavage]] 14:42, 24 September 2012 (EDT)
:Addendum: If the particular example subsections could be organized in some way (possibly alphabetical by last name), I feel that that might help with the readability of the article to some extent.--[[User:DTSavage|DTSavage]] 14:47, 24 September 2012 (EDT)
[[File:Hand and cookies.jpg|thumbnail|right|200px|Obesity is positively associated with [[neuroticism]], impulsiveness, and lower [[self-control|self-discipline]].
 
 
(photo obtained from [http://www.flickr.com/photos/waytoocrowded/1899823572/ Flickr], see [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/deed.en license agreement])]]
:::When deciding the order of the pictures, I LARGELY used a combination of chronological order, the prominence of the atheist and their atheism and obesity "weight class". Should some of these atheists follow the recommendations of [[medical science]], [[nutritional science]] and [[exercise science]], I may move them lower down the in article.

:::There are a number of topics within and related to the atheism and obesity such as irreligion and irrationality (see: [[Irreligion and superstition]]). Some of the causes of obesity are neuroticism, impulsiveness, anger and lower self-discipline issues (see: [[Atheism and obesity]]). Of course, these causes of obesity are also related to irrationality and God-hating. See also: [[Causes of atheism]]). [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:03, 24 September 2012 (EDT)
== Unlock this page please ==
I have material to add--[[User:JerryCa|JerryCa]] 01:20, 6 April 2014 (EDT)
:Please clarify. And if it is a study, have the study have a large data set, be well-designed and control for important variables such as socioeconomic factors.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 08:56, 6 April 2014 (EDT)
::Do I have to justify my postings to you? Surely the very concept of a wiki is to combine resources. I wanted to add some obese atheists but if you do not want help forget it.--[[User:JerryCa|JerryCa]] 17:08, 6 April 2014 (EDT)
:::JerryCa, I am not worried about a shortage of prominent, obese atheists featured in the article. The article features a robust collection of prominent, obese atheists. But feel free to make suggestions on the talk page of the article in the latter part of 5/2019 when your block expires.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 04:55, 15 June 2014 (EDT)

== Mention the Book of Daniel, the scientific experiment in Daniel with a control group and the Daniel diet plan ==

Mention the Book of Daniel, the scientific experiment in Daniel with a control group and the Daniel diet plan mentioned [http://users.adam.com.au/bstett/BObesity155.html HERE]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 03:14, 9 October 2014 (EDT)

== Kim Jong-un ==
You can add this: "[http://english.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2014/05/08/2014050801606.html N.Korean Leader Getting Fatter]." Tha man's immoral behavior may be causing him to find solace in exessive eating. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] 04:15, 10 October 2014 (EDT)
:Upon your request, I added it. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 04:26, 10 October 2014 (EDT)

==Erasmus Darwin==
Corpulent Grandad Erasmus died when Charles Darwin was a little boy. Please explain how he was an evolutionist. It's like saying my grandfather (who died when I was a little boy) worked with wood and was interested in classical music. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 01:52, 26 October 2014 (EDT)
==Medical opinion==
Conservative, with the acception of Dr. Stephen Joseph, who does not really support your claims, can you point to a medical professional who agrees with your assessment? Also can you show me a a respectable source that shows that the USA is not the the most obese nation in the world? I don't want you to question my religious affiliation or point me to one of your other articles I just want to see an unbiased opinion that agrees with you. Can you do that?--[[User:Tomqua|Tomqua]] 10:13, 19 March 2015 (EDT)

=== Making sure you are not a proud atheist who engages in the fallacy of exclusion ===

Just to make sure you are not an [[Atheism and arrogance|arrogant atheist]] who engages in the [[fallacy of exclusion]], I have some questions for you before I am willing to continue:

1. Does the atheist community in the [[Western World]] have a problem with obesity and do they have a greater problem with obesity than religious Africa? See also: [[Secular Europe and obesity]]

2. Are there a number of prominent atheists with excess weight issues? Does medical science have effective methods to lose weight? Do nutritionists and exercise scientists have effective methods of losing weight such as cutting out processed foods, eating a low calorie and low fat diet combined with vigorous exercise? If so, why are so many of the overweight atheists featured in this article still overweight? Do they love pie and other fattening foods and also love being a coach potato more than they love science?

3. Based on the historical data, which historically likely had a greater problem with obesity: Jesus and his disciples or the leadership of the New Atheist movement? See: [[New Atheism leadership's problem with excess weight]] and [[Jesus Christ, the apostles and the Mediterranean diet/Mosaic diet]]. Also, please see these [https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Orthodox+Jews%22&rlz=1C2AVNA_enUS588US588&biw=1024&bih=667&tbm=isch&source=lnms&sa=X&ei=4xhQVPD0KsyfyATQxoCwBA&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAQ tons of pictures] of Orthodox Jews which I presume eat a Mosaic diet. Notice how slim they are!

4. Is the atheist PZ Myers overweight in [https://gaylejordan.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/dsc02944.jpg THIS PICTURE] - especially in his abdominal area?

5. With increasing prosperity, does atheistic China have an ever growing obesity problem? See: [[China and obesity]]. A recent study published in the ''Obesity Reviews'' journal, found that Chinese teenagers' rate of [[diabetes]] was four times that of their [[United States|American]] peers.[http://www.china.org.cn/china/2012-09/14/content_26521029.htm] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:16, 19 March 2015 (EDT)
:::Questions for you:

1: Do young people visit Conservapedia?

2: Do many young people have problem with weight whilst going through or recently gone through puberty?

3:Do many of these people have crisis of religion during these times?

4:Are many of these people impressionable enough to believe what you say?

The answer to all the above is yes. So many of them will look at this article and believe it to be the answer, it is not. These people need medical advice about their weight and reading your article they will not get it. Therefore you are being downright irresponsible preaching it.--[[User:Tomqua|Tomqua]] 15:31, 19 March 2015 (EDT)
::Tomqua, thank you for confirming that you are a proud atheist who engages in the fallacy of exclusion. Pride - one of the biggest achilles' heels of atheism! See also: [[Atheism and arrogance]]. If you are unwilling to address evidence, which I clearly showed, please cease wasting my time. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:38, 19 March 2015 (EDT)
:::I have confirmed nothing of the sort. Are you an atheist? You display many of the traits you pin on atheists. I am a Christian but do not recognize you as such. Gods message is love, yours is hatred.--[[User:Tomqua|Tomqua]] 15:41, 19 March 2015 (EDT)
::::Speaking of fallacies, ever heard of Ad Hominem? You know I am correct and cannot find fault with my reasoning so you attack me instead--[[User:Tomqua|Tomqua]] 15:43, 19 March 2015 (EDT)

Talk:Atheism and obesity

2015-03-19T19:43:43Z

Tomqua: /* Making sure you are not a proud atheist who engages in the fallacy of exclusion */

==Opinion from a Christian==
After skimming through these discussions, I can't believe the arguments going on and which are not going on. I enjoy conservapedia, and always check for an
article here first, and go to Wikipedia if I cannot find it here. I was telling my friend at work (She's a Christian female also) two days ago about this site as a great
Wikipedia alternative in response to a question she had, and was rudely interrupted by another of our coworkers (this ones NOT a Christian, he's a liberal smart
aleck immature boy in his 20s) who shouted "Conservapedia? HAH have you seen their page calling non-christians fat? Not sure if that's going to pass as a
Scholarly source" or something similar to that. He then pulled up this page and started reading it out loud. I have never been so embarrassed in my life. Fat jokes?
I skimmed and found the main argument on this page concerning studies and whether it's true or not, but do I really have to explain this?

It doesn't matter whether or not it's true, because considering the number of people in both groups (millions of Christians! Even atheists I'm sure are 100,000 in the
US. There are going to be a whole lot of obese Christians, thin Christians, obese atheists, and thin atheists. The immature kid at my work is thinner than I am,
which is natural considering the sample sizes involved. Even if it's true, that means that in real life situations the reverse will happen (the atheist coworker would be
fatter than me) slightly more often. Well in case the person or persons who made this page are so out of touch from Christians in the real world, it makes us seem
petty and childish calling the fat guy fat! And in the 40% or whatever times that the Christian is fatter than the atheist (my situation at work), it makes us seem
petty, childish, and just wrong because the fat girl is calling the skinny guy fat ! What purpose is this page supposed to serve other than being embarrassing?

I'll spell this out even simpler: two situations. Situation 1: Fat atheist, the article seems true, and the fat atheist gets sympathy bc Christians are making fun of his
weight. Situation 2: Skinny atheist, and Christians putting forth this site as a better alternative to Wikipedia looks delusional.

Until this filth is removed i will most certainly not be putting my personal recommendation (and by extension, reputation) to this site. So angry, it feels like my son
back in middle school when I'd get calls from his teacher and I'd have to apologize for his behaving like 2 year old in class. NOT Christian-like and NOT helpful -Patty

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)
:JamesTimmons, why didn't you cite the journal articles and other relevant data in the article. That should have put the matter to rest. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 04:21, 15 June 2014 (EDT)
:::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- http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42256829/ns/health-diet_and_nutrition/ 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)
:And addition reason occurred to me why the NorthWestern U study is suspect and why the abundant data I cited in the article is a more accurate picture of the current state of affairs. It appears that they picked poor inner city churches in the USA. Research indicates that a lower socioeconomic status is related to higher rates of obesity.[http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism_and_obesity#cite_note-60] Therefore, the overall culture/practices of those churches would tend to be more prone to obesity inducing practices (donuts after church instead of a yuppie, suburban church juice bar; fatty foods at frequent church gatherings, etc. etc. Please see the very relevant [http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/4490719-460/religion-and-obesity-study-links-church-and-being-fat.html comments of Courtney Parker above] related to church gatherings in his particular city. So even if the researchers tried to use regression analysis to limit the effect of an individual's socioeconomic status as far as the overall analysis, the overall cultural practices of the inner city churches they seemed to predominantly pick would still creep in.

:Plus, most Christians are not in the Western World and quite slim plus I cited a wealth of other data such as researchers finding that religious faith increases a person's amount of self-control, the Gallup data, religious people living longer, etc. etc. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:40, 24 August 2014 (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 instead 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)
::MaxFlethcher, what makes you think that the [[User: Conservative]] account is edited by merely one person? No true skeptic believes this. Second, you provided no evidence that this article is an attack on atheism. Obesity is an important societal problem in the Western World and in many other parts of the world. This article provides data that help people better understand the issue of [[Atheism and obesity]] and it cites data from a wide variety of relevant sources. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 04:13, 15 June 2014 (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)
Sharon, thank you. This article pains me, as an overweight, hard-working Christian. Attacking people for their appearance and body type is to me a lot more of an atheistic, MTV generation behavior. I'm very disturbed to see such superficial bullying (using much less solid evidence) coming from our camp. Judge people by their works and their words and not by their bodies.[[User:KingHanksley|KingHanksley]] 16:06, 14 December 2011 (EST)

==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)
::NateK, given your comment about wanting to punch someone in the nose (someone trained in a martial art who you couldn't hit in the nose if you wanted to), you are hardly in a position to lecture on decorum! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 05:08, 15 June 2014 (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)

:Setting aside whether or not [[Penn Jillette]] offered a good reason, is this often correct?: J. P. Morgan: " A man always has two reasons for doing anything: a good reason and the real reason." The reason I ask is due to this: [[Sye Ten Bruggencate's debate challenge to atheist Penn Jillette]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:26, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
:::[[Essay: This year's best atheist debaters]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 07:17, 4 August 2011 (EDT)

::Was this comment placed here by accident?
::*It doesn't have to do anything with the comment above.
::*User:Human is blocked indefinitely, so he won't answer timely.
::*Traditionally, new stuff goes to the end of a thread...
::[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 01:25, 19 September 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)

My previous comment seemed to be not civil enough, so I try to rephrase my statement: I'm well aware that ''successfully'' is a quite ambiguous term, and I don't want to put to much into it. On various occasions has User:Conservative expressed his desire to debate atheists and/or evolutionist like [[Richard Dawkins]] and [[Penn Jillette]]. He (or even she!) chooses not to bolster his stature by citing any off-site activity or qualification, so the seriousness of his challenges can only be measured by his contributions to this site.

He has created ample content. But the talk pages give you a perfect arena for an actual debate (especially as User:Conservative seems to have a virtual event in mind when he ushers his challenges). So, what is more natural then to look for a discussion on these talk pages to see how good a debater User:Conservative is? As I couldn't find an example of such a discussion where User:Conservative faired well, I asked him to provide me with such an example, i.e., his best shot(s) on these debate grounds.

An impressive amount of such debates would help to take User:Conservative's challenges more serious. But unfortunately User:Conservative hasn't provided me with a link yet.

Thanks, [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 14:18, 16 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 in terms of isolating the variable of religiousness/atheistic. For example, 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)
Conservative, I want to apology for my agressive behavior last week. I would be glad if we could start this over. I understand that this article does not state that all atheists are fat but it clearly imply that being an atheist give you more chance to being obese. Can you please tell me why you think we cannot compare religion and diet between different countries ?--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 19:42, 18 September 2011 (EDT)

== Some observations ==

I know that this hardly counts as a scientific study, but out of interest I went through the list of speakers at The Amazing Meeting 9, a sceptical and atheist event that was held in Las Vegas in July, and checked photos of all the speakers. To reduce the variables as much as possible I considered only American speakers, of whom there were 36. Of these, FOUR (PZ Myers, Pamela Gay, Heidi Anderson and Maria Walters) appeared to be seriously overweight or obese, and Pamela Gay is not an atheist. As a third of US adults are obese this (admittedly crude) study suggests that it is not a problem linked in any significant way to atheism. If anybody can suggest a way to look at this in more detail I'd be happy to do what I can. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 12:34, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
:::SamCoulter, for the sake of discussion lets assume that is true. With that being said, it depends on who you are comparing contemporary American atheists to. Are you comparing them to Jesus? Are you comparing the founders of the New Atheism movement to the American general public (3 out of 5 of the founders of the New Atheism movement have had problems with being overweight)? Are you comparing them to the very religious? Are you comparing them to the the bulk of Christianity which is in the non-Western World? Are you comparing them to Moses who certainly had a lot to say about diet? In any event, atheists say they believe in science and we know what science says about obesity (medical science, nutritional science and exercise science). Certainly a group of prominent atheists being prominent in the waist is an embarrassment especially since many atheists claim two things: atheism is in accordance with good science and theism is not and atheists are intellectually superior. BY the way, given that being overweight/obese is a causal factor for brain impairment, an overeweight/obese atheist claiming intellectual superiority is problematic. Lastly, since some atheists probably believe that society is evolving upward, contemporary American atheists being more overweight than mankind was in general earlier is problematic as well. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:28, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
::::No, atheists say that they DON'T believe in God. The majority of them certainly are attached to the scientific method, but then again so are the majority of western Christians. I don't think we help ourselves by misrepresenting what atheists believe. For the record I am comparing prominent American atheists to the US population in general, and it doesn't look like they're any more prone to obesity. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 13:39, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::Sam, you didn't adequately respond to my posts that atheism is more than merely not believing in God which I thought was very shoddy. Second, I cite: "Social Darwinism claims that society is evolving upward from our primitive beginnings to the point where we reach a state of utopia."[http://mnorthernlights.blogspot.com/2009/01/darwin-day-2009.html] Certainly, highly religious Bible believers do not believe in social Darwinism so time periods of atheists getting plumper are not problematic to biblical Christianity. Also, how attached are overweight/obese atheists to the scientific method? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:50, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::Atheists say that's what atheism is, and the difference between not believing in gods and denying the existence of gods is in any case more semantic than anything else: Me: "Do you deny the existence of God?" Atheist: "Yes." Me: "Why?" Atheist: "Because I don't believe in gods." Social Darwinism has nothing to do with the theory of evolution and claiming that it does just gives evolutionists an opening to attack your credibility. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 14:00, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
::Do atheists say what atheism is or do encyclopedias of philosophy? If someone says they are Napolean is he? Why is the definition more semantic than anything else and how does it affect the burden of proof as far as the existence of God? Next, where did I say Social Darwinism is the exactly the same as macroevolution? The more I interact with you and you fail to adequately respond to my questions and the material I post to you, the less worthwhile I am finding it to respond to you. Don't be surprised if I cease to respond to you. Perhaps, you should consider adequately responding to the backlog of questions I have posed to you and more adequately respond to what I have posted to you. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 14:11, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
:::My opinion is that atheists get to say what it is. Your opinion is clearly different; fine, that's your right. However if someone says "I'm an atheist," and you say "Then according to my encyclopaedia of philosophy you believe X" and he replies "Well, I don't," what does that mean? That he's lying, that he's not an atheist or that your encyclopaedia is wrong? Secondly, I never claimed that you DID say social Darwinism is exactly the same as macroevolution; I just pointed out that it has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with evolutionary theory, because it doesn't. Finally, we seem to have a different perception on whether or not I've adequately responded to your questions and again that is your right, but it's also mine. No offence, but there are some questions - such as why is this article based on a study that talks about neither atheism nor obesity - that you haven't answered too well yourself. I am NOT trying to get into a fight with you or anyone else here; I am trying to expand Conservapedia into a valuable educational resource that will turn people away from atheism and evolutionism, as are you. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 14:28, 16 September 2011 (EDT)

== Challenge for User:Conservative ==

''BY the way, given that obesity is a causal factor for brain impairment, an obese atheist claiming intellectual superiority is problematic.'' quote by [[User:Conservative]]

So now you claim there are no smart fat people. Wow, just... wow.

70 to 76% of Americans self-identify as Christian. 2-5% of Americans self-identify as atheists. 33.8% of Americans are overweight/obese. There is obviously a much greater problem within the Christian community than in the atheist community, by sheer numbers alone, yet Conservapedia turns a blind eye to this issue. It also ignores "normal weight obesity", where skinny people can be fatties without even knowing it.

You keep challenging people to debate you on atheism. Well, I'm not an atheist, and I don't know much about that subject, but I ''am'' overweight. I'm challenging you to a debate about how horribly Conservapedia treats obese people in their articles. Simple rules - written responses with one post (no edits); the topic is '''''just obesity''''', not atheism, homosexuality, evolutionism, feminism, etc. and so forth (I can't remember all the labels you've tried to slap on fat people); answers due the last Saturday of October. You can pick the moderator.

Or I'll post my phone number and you can tell me in person why you '''''flat-out ignore''''' the fat Christians or the fat creationists or the fat heterosexuals or all of the intelligent, talented , good, nice fat people who live in this country in your diatribes. I'll pay for the phone call. Whichever one you want to choose is fine with me. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 14:08, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
::::Sharon, where did a claim that there are no smart/talented/etc. overweight/obese people? I didn't and I don't think it is fair for you to misrepresent what I have written. For example, certainly it is possible in some cases for someone starting with an IQ of 200 to suffer brain impairment, yet still be smart. In terms of "intellectual superiority", it all depends on who you are comparing a person to. Plus, we really don't to what degree many health related weight problems are so Conservapedia offering material on the affects of excess weight plus various solutions for many people's problems with being overweight is a public service. I do know that in many cases the health effects of being overweight in terms of symptoms can be reversed to a large degree via weight loss. Also, given that many maladies are progressive in terms of their effects, it is better for people to be educated on the effects of being overweight sooner rather than later. Next, given that I cite responsible sources for my articles in terms of their claims such as medical journals citing research, etc., I see no reason to debate you. If you had claimed that specific statements in my articles were wrong and attempted to offer evidence to the contrary that might be different, but this is not the case plus I have used responsible sources for my articles such as medical journals citing research, etc. Lastly, thanks for the offer to have a phone discussion, but I think I will decline at this time. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 14:57, 16 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::::No, you haven't actually ''written'' the words that there are no smart/talented/etc. overweight/obese people, you have simply ''implied'' it. Reread the quote at the top of this section. Look at the articles you've written that associate obesity with things that you don't believe in. Look at the articles you've '''''not''''' written about obesity - the fact that there is an issue within the Christian community; that it's an issue among heterosexuals, etc.; that there is some debate on whether a person can be overweight and still be healthy; that thin people can also be considered to have "normal weight obesity". I haven't argued about the medical information you've provided - it's the ''application'' of that information that I'm protesting. You use "obese" as a pejorative, and that's not right. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 20:24, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
::::Sharon, I am not going to spend time addressing what I supposedly said "between the lines", implied, etc. If my critics don't want to show me where I made a mistake in what I actually wrote then so be it. Secondly, if you want to open a debate page entitled "Can a person be overweight and still be healthy?" then please be my guest. Given the massive amount of research that has been done on the effects of being overweight by the medical community and the biblical admonitions against overeating, I think you face an uphill battle but if you want to fight this battle with those who disagree with you, then so be it. Also, how can being overweight be an issue within a community as you suggest above, but still be healthy? Over in overweight means too much. If there are no adverse effects to being overweight (unhealthy to be overweight), then are they '''over'''weight? If you want to address the central issue, then I suggest you open the debate page I suggested. If you do open such a debate page, I would suggest you provide counter evidence to each of the sources I used on the effects of being overweight (effect on longevity, effects on brain function, etc. etc. etc. ). I do realize that there are health risks associated with being underweight and that health is more than just BMI/weight and that mortality does not necessarily mean quality of life (joint problems associated with being overweight, impaired brain function, etc.), but I don't think you can show me that any of the information I presented were examples of healthy lifestyles being shown as unhealthy. ([[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:14, 17 September 2011 (EDT)
Sharon, I might have used another Conservapedians claims/source about BMI rather than use my own and a responsible source seems to have been used. If I did use another Conservapedians BMI source, I used a BMI of over 25 as being overweight. Here is something I just read from a 2010 source: "After analyzing data on 1.46 million mostly white, non-Hispanic adults who participated in 19 long-term studies — each designed to follow participants for between 5 to 28 years — researchers determined that, overall, a BMI (or body mass index, a ratio of height and weight that determines overweight and obesity) between 20.0 and 24.9 was associated with the lowest risk of death in healthy non-smoking adults." [http://healthland.time.com/2010/12/03/whats-the-ideal-bmi-for-longevity] The [[Mayo Clinic]] which has a high reputation for giving sound health advice concurs with this figure. [http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/bmi-calculator/NU00597] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:12, 17 September 2011 (EDT)
:::One last thing, this is a volunteer wiki and people can within reason choose the topics of the articles they write on depending on their interests and what they feel the public might be interested in and use such things as the Conservapedia commandments in order to have a good article (cite sources, etc.). If you want to do the requisite amount of research an write good articles on topics such as [[Heterosexuality and obesity]], etc. etc. then be my guest. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:26, 18 September 2011 (EDT)

::::Actually, I'm planning two articles: [[Negative stereotypes in society and obesity]] and [[Christian and weight issues]]. The first is prevelant (see [[atheism and obesity]], with its numerous pictures of atheists, dictators, murderers, etc., and not one person who has a positive reputation with Christians], and the second is actually a greater problem than [[atheism and obesity]], given that Christians are supposed to follow the Bible's teachings, as you've pointed out. I'm sure there are numerous examples for both articles. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 11:50, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::::I did some poking around the internet. If you write the articles, I would suggest not titling an article [[Christian and weight issues]] as it does not seem to be a popular search engine search so people will not find your article. Also, based on Google suggestions, here are some more prevalent searches via the search engines if you want to write on these topics: [[Obesity stereotypes]] and [[Christian weight loss]] and [[Christian weight loss programs]]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:23, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::User:Conservative is right. To maximise viewers, you should either use search-friendly titles such as the ones he suggests, or else create links to your articles from others that will get a lot of search hits (I assume [[Atheism and obesity]] is in this category).--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:00, 19 September 2011 (EDT)

Thank you for the concern about the popularity of my proposed articles, but popularity has never been a driving force in my life.

I was going to write these articles; in fact, the one about 'Christians and weight issues' was completed on my hard-drive within hours of posting my last comment on this talk page, complete with a list of prominent/notable Christians who are overweight/obese. I was (and still am) disgusted and angry about the obesity articles that are here on CP, and CP's policy that it is an acceptable conservative/Christian practice to attack someone's appearance when the real issue is a difference in ideology. After stepping away from this issue for several days to cool down, I realized my proposed articles were exactly the same as CP's articles on obesity, and I won't lower myself to that level.

Over the years, I've dealt with mean-spirited, thoughtless, childish, inconsiderate behavior from people due to weight issues. Sometimes it is unintentional; other times, such as in these articles, it is a deliberate action.

You claim these articles are a "public service" to share information on the dangers of obesity. I say hooey to that. If that were truly the case, there would be the single, main article about [[obesity]] on CP, complete with the important information about the associated health risks, and all of these articles attempting to link obesity with atheism/evolution/homosexuality/lesbianism/feminism, etc. wouldn't exist.

I would have a lot more respect if you just came out and '''admitted''' you are using "obese" as an insult directed toward people you don't like. You know it's true, and so do I. If it wasn't deliberate, you would be willing to talk with me about the situation, as I proposed earlier, and there would be more acknowledgement in CP's articles that obesity is an issue that isn't restricted to those people with whom you disagree, but also with religious people, straight people, creationists, etc. Also, there wouldn't be "fat jokes" like 'how much wax would be needed to create an obese atheist museum' showing up on the talk pages. (By the way – ha, ha. Heaven knows I've never heard a variation of ''that'' joke before.)

Do I expect the situation to change? No. Obesity is a too-easily-applied ''ad hominem'', and it appears there is much enjoyment here on CP in using it. But you should '''''strongly''''' consider arguing the ''issues'' (atheism, homosexuality, feminism, etc. and so forth) instead of taking the easy way out and attacking the person. It's the grown-up thing to do. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 15:28, 22 September 2011 (EDT)

== Might be of interest ==

An interesting comparison of [http://blog.hunch.com/?p=48884 dietary habits]. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:26, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
:That seems like a liberal-run sight trying to make conservatives look unhealthy and unsophisticated. They way it's written appears very deceptive. [[User:RSnelik|RSnelik]] 17:38, 18 September 2011 (EDT)

A lot depends on how you define conservative. Are they for limited government which includes the United States not being the world's policeman? Are they for nation building? Are neoconservatives being counted as conservatives?

For example:
"I have always given it as my decided opinion that no nation has a right to intermeddle in the internal concerns of another; that every one has a right to form and adopt whatever government they liked best to live under themselves; and that if this country could, consistently with its engagements, maintain a strict neutrality and thereby preserve peace, it was bound to do so by motives of policy, interest, and every other consideration. - George Washington, from Letter to James Monroe, August 25,1796.

Also:
"Hence , likewise , they will avoid the necessity of those overgrown military establishments which, under any form of government are inauspicious to liberty, and which are to be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty." - George Washington

Given the size of the U.S. Federal Government deficit and some Republicans having budget deficits, it seems to me as if the "conservatives" who want the United States to have an overgrown military are not doing a lot of deep thinking plus are not very disciplined and would be more given to making poor dietary choices. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:51, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
:::Here is another point: There is no indication that Moses was fat or that kosher diets lead to obesity. Also, the "Kosher Diet is not a weight loss diet per se, but its emphasis on fruits and vegetables, fish and it's lack of...high-fat pork products...can make it an eating plan that supports healthy eating and a healthy relationship to food."[http://www.dietsinreview.com/diets/kosher-diet/] Christianity has arguably had the greatest impact on Western Civilization and Christianity is a very conservative religion that says it is the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies. The Mayo Clinic says that the Mediterranean diet is a healthy diet. [http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/mediterranean-diet/CL00011] Jesus, the carpenter and traveling preacher who was not fat, was the founder of Christianity and he ate a kosher diet probably influenced by the Mediterranean diet. Thus, while Jesus is not a conservative in the 20th century political sense, he definitely was more conservative and slimmer than overweight and obese atheists/evolutionists. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:31, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
::::Conservative, you cannot compare the diet of Jesus to the diet of 21th century evolutionnists. It is 2 different times with completely different diets. And what make you think that Jesus was conservative ? He surely had pretty modern ideas for this time.--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 19:38, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::Also, the Apostle Peter who lived in Rome, probably was not overweight either and many present day Italians incorporate a Mediterranean diet. In addition, "In Europe, Italy was the only country where average weights actually dropped, and, along with France and Switzerland, it's home to some of Europe's slimmest people on average." [http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,14818710,00.html] I think Penn Jillette needs to ask himself, "What would Jesus or Michael Sylvester Gardenzio Stallone eat?" :) Also, unlike the overweight atheist Penn Jillette, Michael Sylvester Gardenzio Stallone is known for his [[Essay: Does Richard Dawkins have machismo?|machismo]]! :) See also: [[Sye Ten Bruggencate's debate challenge to atheist Penn Jillette]] See also: [[Sye Ten Bruggencate's debate challenge to atheist Penn Jillette]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:50, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::::Conservative, for Italy, France and Switzerland are countries with very high ratio of atheists, I fail to see how this helps your cause.--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 19:55, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
Do you believe that the atheist Penn Jillette has more [[Essay: Does Richard Dawkins have machismo?|machismo]] than the conservative Christian Chuck Norris and the Italian stallion Michael Sylvester Gardenzio Stallone? See also: [[Sye Ten Bruggencate's debate challenge to atheist Penn Jillette]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:58, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
::Conservative, what does machismo have to do with obesity ?--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 20:00, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
:::Yes, I am slightly confused also. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 20:02, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::Atheists and liberals often have great difficulty understanding the concept of [[Essay: Does Richard Dawkins have machismo?|machismo]]. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:06, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::Well I am neither and I fail to see the relevance to this discussion. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 20:07, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
::::"I like [[John McCain|McCain]] a lot. A lot. The script that's being written - and the reality - is pretty brutal and pretty hard-edged like a rough action film, and you need somebody who's been in that to deal with it." - Michael Sylvester Gardenzio Stallone [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:26, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::I'm sorry? I still don't understand. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 20:30, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::And Michael Sylvester Gardenzio Stallone eats a lot of fish, just like Jesus and the Apostle Peter did. :) [http://www.howcelebsgetfit.com/sylvester-stallone-fitness-training-exercise-and-diet-plan/] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:33, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::Why are you obsessed with Stallone today? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 20:40, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
Michael Sylvester Gardenzio Stallone certainly has his faults, but given that he incorporates aspects of the Mediterranean diet, he probably generally eats more like Jesus and the Apostle Peter does than the overweight atheist Penn Jillette who professes to respect science. :) I thought medical science, exercise science, and nutritional science were all part of science. :) And of course, the fit Stallone has more [[Essay: Does Richard Dawkins have machismo?|machismo]] than the overweight atheist Penn Jillette. :) See also: [[Sye Ten Bruggencate's debate challenge to atheist Penn Jillette]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]]
:Yes of course, because Italian cuisine - with its prosciutto, cotoletta, Tyrolische Speck, parma ham, cotechini, salami and wide range of meat dishes in a cream or cheese sauce is JUST LIKE the kosher diet of a 1st Century Judean. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 09:12, 19 September 2011 (EDT)
::Stallone was born in America. But I still can't see your point. Do you know that there are a lot of atheist in southern Europe who have a Mediterranean diet ?--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 22:10, 18 September 2011 (EDT)

Pat Tillman didn't lack machismo; neither did Bruce Lee. Lance Armstrong won seven Tour de France races. George Clooney is very popular with the ladies. All were/are atheists. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 22:02, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
:Bruce Lee '''definitely''' had machismo! Stallone became a catholic in 1996. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:04, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
::::[[Bruce Lee|Did he]]? By the way, "...it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment." - Hebrews 9:27 [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:07, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::What does that mean ?--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 22:12, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
:::: Stallone also took a lot of human growth hormone and was nearly charged for having it in Australia. Hardly a Biblical diet. [[User:Aortuso|Aortuso]] 22:05, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
As I indicated above, "Michael Sylvester Gardenzio Stallone certainly has his faults". With that being said, who does you think is in better health: Stallone or the overweight atheist Penn Jillette? Who do you think took better care of their health: Jesus or the overweight atheist Penn Jillette? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:23, 19 September 2011 (EDT)
:::Probably hard to tell when basing on mere looks. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 00:29, 19 September 2011 (EDT)
::Interesting fact: Penn Jillette is NOT the only atheist in the world. Why would you keep focusing on him ? Why don't you talk about other atheists like Bruce Lee Lance Armstrong or any of the multitude of fit atheists (like me for example) ?--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 00:28, 19 September 2011 (EDT)
Penn Jillette is not the only atheist in the world, but he makes up for it in weight. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:04, 19 September 2011 (EDT)
::Wow, that's a pretty good argument!--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 01:07, 19 September 2011 (EDT)

== You know, ==

the debate [[Talk:Atheism and obesity/Archive1#factual|here]] was never finished--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 21:56, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
:::I did respond. Have you contacted your representatives yet? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:59, 18 September 2011 (EDT)

== Minor typo ==

My apologies if I'm focusing too much on minor details, but I read this page after noticing it came up in Recent Changes, and I found a ''very'' minor grammatical error. In the Atheism and Health section, a comma is missing, as indicated here:

<blockquote>
In the journal article ''Religion, self-regulation, and self-control: Associations, explanations, and implications'' '''(comma should go here)''' psychologists McCullough and Willoughby theorize that many of the positive links of religiousness with health and social behavior may be caused by religion's beneficial influences on self-control/self-regulation
</blockquote>

As I said, it's a minor issue, but as a professional writer, it's the sort of thing I notice. Thank you very much! [[User:KevinDavis|Kevin Davis]] [[User talk:KevinDavis|Talk]] 23:05, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
:I just noticed that I myself had a minor typo in my above post, and I apologize. I meant "notice" instead of "noticed." Thank you! [[User:KevinDavis|Kevin Davis]] [[User talk:KevinDavis|Talk]] 23:06, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
:::Thanks. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:19, 19 September 2011 (EDT)
::::Thank you for correcting it! [[User:KevinDavis|Kevin Davis]] [[User talk:KevinDavis|Talk]] 23:07, 22 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::I am certainly a fool, and I'm still growing accustomed to Mediawiki's syntax. When I saw the difference link in my watchlist, I saw that the comment was outside the <nowiki>''</nowiki>, and I mistook those for quotes. Thus, my previous comment is irrelevant. Thanks! [[User:KevinDavis|Kevin Davis]] [[User talk:KevinDavis|Talk]] 23:07, 22 September 2011 (EDT)

== Reasonable debate offer ==

I wanted remove my offer from the cowardice talkpage because it is getting off-topic and people don't seem very genuine over there. Conservative has been talking a lot about how people (atheists I believe) won't debate him and are too scared to debate in general - I think that's what he is saying anyway, he can be a bit...confusing at times. I am not an atheist nor do I really know anything about science so having a debate about the existence of God or evolution is pointless. But I am willing to debate him on the topic of Atheism and Obesity. We can have a written debate right here on Conservapedia at an agreed upon time. If/When Conservative accepts this we can work out any further rules if required. If Conservative can let me know and if he declines I'd like a reason why that doesn't consist of a non-sequitar. Thanks, [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 18:00, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
:Hello? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 20:23, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
:::I still think you are an atheist and evolutionist and you know [[Talk:Cowardice|my policy about debating obscure atheist rather than non-obscure atheist.]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:59, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
::::I am '''not''' an atheist and your continued denial of my faith is extremely offensive. I have given you no reason to think I am so please desist in your remarks. My debate offer is very reasonable. Why will you not accept it? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 21:05, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::Max, I respect your good faith attempts to engage User:Conservative in debate, but it should be more than obvious to you, and everyone else, that User:Conservative does not intend to enter into a formal debate with anyone on any subject. As should be obvious from his articles and correspondences, User:Conservative does not appear interested in enlightening his audience or winning support for his worldview. No, quite clearly, his end goal is to ridicule and frustrate his ideological and philosophical enemies. He achieves this by continually bragging about his undefeated debating track record, yet never provides any proof or evidence his memory on this matter is accurate and correct. He issues challenges to those he knows will never accept his offer. Yet in turn sets up prerequisites that are impossible to satisfy for those who are willing to debate him. All previous offers to debate User:Conservative have met with one of the following responses:
:::::*Declined because the opponent is too "obscure" or not "prominent" enough.
:::::*Declined because the opponent would not meet his arcane list of demands.
:::::*Declined because his eventual victory is assured.
:::::*Ignored, then treated the requester to one of his world famous non-sequitur answers.(popular)
:::::*Ignored, no response given.
:::::*Ignored, offending offer deleted and burned.

:::::That's about it. That is all you can ever hope to get. Why? Because he's not interested in sharing, comparing, and contrasting ideas in a thoughtful manner. Nope, he just wants to ridicule and frustrate people. There's a word for that... rhymes with roll... mole? coal? Anyway, good luck. --[[User:SteveK|SteveK]] 01:04, 29 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::Pardon the puns, but I am only interested in debating the "big cheeses" within the atheist community and not the "small fries". :) I challenged the overweight atheist [[Penn Jillette]] to debate me, but he ran away which no doubt caused him to be out of breathe. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:46, 22 January 2012 (EST)
SteveK, I just found out that John J. Pasquini, Th.D., cited my Conservapedia [[atheism]] articles three times in his book'' Atheist Persona: Causes and Consequences'' (the book has 77 footnotes and cites Conservapedia atheism articles in footnotes 34, 64 and 67).[http://books.google.com/books?id=OMRhAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA24&lpg=PA24&dq=conservapedia+atheism&source=bl&ots=XoulnSQ90x&sig=_1xyC3wiZtD9ihYXVljTugA2tGk&hl=en&sa=X&ei=pL_3U72vB4r6oQTGg4HwCQ&ved=0CGsQ6AEwCTgK#v=onepage&q=conservapedia%20atheism&f=false] The book was favorably reviewed by [[Michael Behe]] (a leading proponent of [[intelligent design]] theory), [[Paul Vitz]] and [[Michael Egnor]] (also a proponent of intelligent design) and was published by the academic publisher University Press of America.[http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/atheist-persona-john-j-pasquini/1117916966?ean=9780761863328] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:19, 24 August 2014 (EDT)

==Bad Info==

The info on this page seems to be inaccurate, recent studies show that religious people are around 50% more likely to be obese than non believers, or at least non worshipers. Furthermore obesity occurrences in the United States seem to be centered around the Bible Belt and more Christian-Conservative States. Perhaps instead of criticizing other groups we should begin a campaign to educate fellow Christians and help people make healthier choices in their life. In my opinion, not taking care of your body is a sin, I think we should strive to make people healthier and perhaps start a campaign such as the successful [[Question Evolution Campaign]]. Source: http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700124603/Study-finds-link-between-religion-obesity.html Gelatin
::First of all, you misread your own source. Second, the shortcomings of the NorthWestern study have been discussed on this talk page. Third, as far as geographical area you are talking about, you haven't discussed other variables and last time I checked we still live in a multiple variable world. I suggest reading some books on statistics and improving your reading comprehension skills. Lastly, we really don't have any reliable reports of Moses, Elijah, Jesus or the Apostles Paul and Peter being overweight and I would be hard pressed to find more religious people than these very religious biblical figures. On the other hand, I certainly did show quite a few atheist leaders who have had weight challenges despite the fact that medical science, nutritional science and exercise science offers a host of solutions on a maintaining healthy weight. But just to make sure you are not a typical atheist denialist, has the [[New Atheism]] leadership had significant problems with being overweight? Has the [[American Atheists]] organization had significant problems with its leaders being overweight? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:36, 27 October 2011 (EDT)
:::Do you have any reports of Moses, Elijah etc NOT being overweight? As the only contemporary references we have to most of the prophets are in books the wrote themselves I don't think this is an argument I'd like to defend. --[[User:HarryPagett|HarryPagett]] 13:16, 21 December 2011 (EST)
[[File:70810564 64d3a67932.jpg|left|200px|thumb|Harry, Moses delivered to the Israel the Mosaic law. I believe that eating kosher is healthy. Ultra-orthodox Jews don't seem to have a problem with excess weight.]]
{{clear}}
I just find it interesting that we would concern ourselves with the incidence of obesity in atheists, as this seems rather non-sequitor. Why not look at things that are more related to faith and morality such as crime rates (http://current.com/community/92831935_atheists-supply-less-than-1-of-prison-populations-while-christians-make-up-75.htm) (http://www.pitzer.edu/academics/faculty/zuckerman/Zuckerman_on_Atheism.pdf) or sexual morality (http://spq.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/73/1/33) or racism and ethnocentrism (http://www.pitzer.edu/academics/faculty/zuckerman/Zuckerman_on_Atheism.pdf) even intelligence would be more telling than obesity (http://spq.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/73/1/33) [[User:CatholicBill]]

:As I understand it, the argument is that obesity is itself linked to most of these factors. For sexual morality, see [[Homosexuality and obesity]]. For intelligence, see the oft-made point that obese individuals may be ignoring scientific research into diet and exercise. For ethnocentricity, one might perhaps suggest that obese atheists are ignoring healthy ethnic foods such as brown rice and mung beans (should this be added to the article?). So you see, it's not that those issues are excluded, it's that effort is made to cover as many issues as possible, as amply as possible. The expansive obsesity writings enable anti-atheist fingers to be dipped into many pies.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 11:41, 21 December 2011 (EST)
::Is this a bad time to point out that dipping fingers in pies is likely to lead to obesity? :-) --[[User:HarryPagett|HarryPagett]] 13:20, 21 December 2011 (EST)
::::::User: CatholicBill, the article is about atheism and obesity - not crime statistics. It is certainly no crime to overeat or be overweight. Please stick to the topic of the article. Be that as it may: [http://creation.com/atheism#incarceration HERE is some crime statistics in relation to no-religion people you are failing to bring up.] As far as your other "arguments", you are failing to recognize that we live in a multi-variable world. For example, if affluence is related to atheism because people get "fat and sassy" (rebellious) towards God when their wallet is fuller then that would certainly affect IQ levels since their is a correlation between wealth and IQ. By the way, if atheists are so smart, then why did the Soviet Union fall? :) Lastly, the atheist community could take much of the wind out of the sails of this article simply by losing weight which is easy to do if you comply with what nutritional science, exercise science and medical science say to do. Atheists purport to love science so this should be quite easy to do if their purported love of science is genuine. So instead of kvetching about this article, I suggest that the atheist community get more serious about applying the health sciences within their community. If you are an atheist, next time you feel tempted to eat a Whopper ask yourself "What would Jesus eat?" According to the [[Mayo Clinic]] the Mediterranean diet/lifestyle (which is what Jesus ate/did) is quite healthy and compatible with weight loss.[http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/mediterranean-diet/CL00011] For example, Jesus no doubt ate figs and figs are a "sweet way to lose weight" or maintain a healthy weight.[http://www.whfoods.com/genpage.php?tname=foodspice&dbid=24#healthbenefits] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:18, 22 January 2012 (EST)

==Ad Hominem Abusive==

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)
:::::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)
::::::I hadn't noticed the others, thanks for the heads up. Shall I remove this section? It seems unnecessary. --[[User:Swinefish|Swinefish]] 23:07, 3 November 2011 (EDT)
:::::::You can leave it. You redefining a fallacy and it being pointed out was useful. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:31, 4 November 2011 (EDT)

== Other countries plus America's culture which is historically more car centered ==

:Rather contrary to the rather limited 'studies' that this article bases its claims off, I think it'd be most logical to conclude that atheism is inversely proportional to obesity, when you consider the USA has one of the highest (if not the highest) obesity rates in the Western world, and also happens to be the most religious.
Where do most Christians reside in the world? The East or the West? Are people in the East thinner? Do you have any large studies comparable to the Gallup study in size which isolate the religious variable in relation to health habits and/or obesity? More importantly, do you have any large studies comparable to the Gallup study in size which isolates the variable of religiousness in relation to health habits and/or obesity and measures the "Very religious". The reason I ask these questions is that we know the major variables of income, education and race affect how people eat/exercise.

In addition, we know that America is the birth place of large scale automobile manufacturing ([[Henry Ford]] and Ford Motor Company) plus has had federal/state public policy pushing the interstate highways and suburbia (Also, America had white flight out of the cities and into the suburbs).[http://www.skidmore.edu/academics/roads/TRANSCRIPT.html] So it comes as no big surprise that America has a very automobile centered culture and has less of a bicycle/walking culture than many Western nations (bike lanes and bike paths, etc). Of course, this has a significant negative impact on the amount of exercise in America and adds to obesity.[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19164816][http://policy.rutgers.edu/faculty/pucher/jpah08.pdf]

Next, to make sure you are not an atheist denialist, did a significant number of the New Atheism founders (and [[PZ Myers]]} have a significant problem with being overweight? See: [[New Atheism leadership's problem with excess weight]] Similarly, does/did a significant number of the board of directors of the [[American Atheists]] organization have a problem with being overweight? See: [[Atheism and obesity]] Also, does [[Penn Jillette]] have a problem with being overweight?

In short, your analysis was far too simplistic and suffered as a result. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:53, 31 March 2012 (EDT)
:::By the way, thanks for reminding me about this article. I just added [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/8106603.stm another picture citation] to the [[Atheism and obesity]] article. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:29, 1 April 2012 (EDT)
::::Addendum: I added a few pictures that further illustrate the issue of atheism and obesity and/or the problems associated with atheist obesity. For example, atheist [[PZ Myers]]' difficulty ascending and descending the dinosaur model at the [[Creation Museum]] due to the fact that he was overweight and out of shape.[http://conservapedia.com/Atheism_and_obesity#PZ_Myers.27_visit_to_the_Creation_Museum] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:06, 1 April 2012 (EDT)

== Form follows function ==

Or in this case - the form reflects the content: it is just messy:
*there are two sections above the TOC
*the references/notes are a mess: generally each should show which source is quoted. That's helpful for the reader when he ponders whether the link is worth following...
*having a separate section for each atheist is messy and clutters the TOC - especially as those section sometimes only state the name.
*it is a pain to read: e.g, the phrase ''in addition'' pops up a dozen times...

The whole subject is ridiculous, but User:Conservative, when you are spending so much time micro-managing it, couldn't you try to improve its outfit and readability? Thanks, [[User:AugustO|AugustO]]

:For those in a hurry, I have condensed some of the essential info about individuals into a [[Gallery of obese atheists|gallery page]]. They do say that a picture is worth a thousand words. Could a link from this page be added?--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:08, 20 June 2012 (EDT)

== Comment for User:Conservative ==

I must commend you for all your work tying fat people to atheism/homosexuality/etc., etc. Too bad you don't spend your time trying to help both sectors (obese people and atheists) by showing compassion and God's love rather than disdain and mockery.

True witnessing for God doesn't consist of putting people down because you dislike them for either their appearance (obese people - you obviously have an issue with them) or their beliefs (atheists).

How many people do you truly think you've brought to God with your writings? As an obese Christian, I know you've offended me with your attempts to link obesity with everything you hate, and I doubt that disbelievers would feel any less offended. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 11:11, 29 June 2012 (EDT)

Edited to add: Quite frankly, your writings make me feel toward you the same way as I have ever felt toward the bullies I've encountered in my real life. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 11:36, 29 June 2012 (EDT)
=== Response of User: Conservative ===
Sharon, above are discussions about atheism and obesity.

As far as [[Homosexuality and obesity]] among other things I cited this:

"The journalist [[Peter LaBarbera]] wrote:

The National Youth Risk Behavior Surveys are given to high schoolers, and the Centers for Disease Control looked at the data from 2001 to 2009 in the states of Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Vermont, Wisconsin and the cities of Boston, Chicago, Milwaukee, New York City, San Francisco and San Diego, locales where the schools permitted questions about homosexual identity/behavior, which isn’t always the case in less “progressive” areas.

Teens who called themselves “gay, lesbian or bisexual,” or who were unsure, as well as those who didn’t use those labels but had sexual contact only with same-sex people or with both sexes, were found to be more likely than heterosexually identified students to engage in seven out of the 10 risk behavior categories. These were: 1) behaviors that contribute to violence; 2) behaviors related to attempted suicide; 3) tobacco use; 4) alcohol use; 5) other drug use; 6) sexual behaviors; and 7) weight management. (emphasis added)"[http://americansfortruth.com/2011/06/24/wrong-diagnosis-wrong-cure-harvey-assails-cdcs-pro-gay-youth-spin/#more-9505]

You may disagree with me, but I think the [[Centers for Disease Control]] is a valid source to use in this instance. I am not saying the CDC is perfect, but nevertheless I don't have a problem with citing them in this instance. I also have no problem citing a conservative journalist who formerly worked for a leading newspaper and a conservative organization.

Also, today I added some health/fitness information on weight loss plus some additional information from responsible sources. I don't see why an encyclopedia should refrain from offering useful/valid information. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:42, 29 June 2012 (EDT)

::I disagree with the tone of your writings, yes. Please explain to me how [http://conservapedia.com/Gallery_of_obese_atheists this] helps anyone? Does it draw people closer to God's word? Does it show God's love? Or does it show pettiness instead? It's certainly not funny, or educational, or loving in any way. But then again, I guess you don't claim to be witnessing, do you? What exactly is the purpose behind the linking of obesity to everything you hate? Are you even ''trying'' to convert anyone? --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 14:07, 29 June 2012 (EDT)
::::I don't see us agreeing on the topics of obesity and atheism/homosexuality anytime soon. But I know I did cite relevant sources such as the [[Centers for Disease Control]]/Peter LaBarbera (see above) and [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=17463369&ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum this Pubmed material]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 14:48, 29 June 2012 (EDT)

:::::No, I doubt that I'll ever think bullying behavior toward obese people is the correct way to act. And I notice you totally fail to answer my questions - why? You accuse people of being cowards when they fail to answer your questions. Maybe you ought to take a good, long look in the mirror. Don't flatter yourself that you win when you avoid answering. I've challenged you before about having a debate over the treatment Conservapedia deals out toward fat people. Care to take me up on it? --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 15:09, 29 June 2012 (EDT)

== Other commentary ==

You won't see Jesus, Moses, Apostle Paul or the Apostle Peter in your list. They pretty much ate a Mosaic diet or Mediterranean diet employing reasonable portions and had sufficient exercise.
::Conveniently, there doesn't exist any portraits of these people that were done from life, so you're making an assumption here. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 15:29, 29 June 2012 (EDT)

Here are some interesting articles on weight loss and maintaining a healthy weight:

*[http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/mediterranean-diet/CL00011 Mediterranean diet] by [[Mayo Clinic]]
*[http://www.motleyhealth.com/fitness/how-much-exercise-is-needed-to-get-fit-and-lose-weight How much exercise is needed to get fit and lose weight]
*[http://www.bbc.co.uk/health/treatments/healthy_living/fitness/daily_howmuch.shtml Exercise: How much? - BBC News]
*[http://www.acsm.org/about-acsm/media-room/news-releases/2011/08/01/acsm-issues-new-recommendations-on-quantity-and-quality-of-exercise American College of Sports Medicine]

My thoughts on this matter agree with this material: [[Chuck Norris on the topic of obesity]]

I have met people from various parts of the world and there is far less obesity in the [[Eastern World]] than in many parts of the [[Western World]] and I think the reason is that they eat better, get more exercise and are often more disciplined. Also, Asian Americans generally lead more healthy lives too than many westerners. I have a feeling that Amy Chua doesn't allow her kid(s) to eat a lot of snacks and watch a lot of television. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:31, 29 June 2012 (EDT)
:Non sequitur. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 16:00, 29 June 2012 (EDT)

:''You won't see Jesus, Moses, Apostle Paul or the Apostle Peter in your list.'' No, the list doesn't imply that all Christians are obese! Do you think that there are only fat atheists?
:It seems that your belief is just one amongst a lot more influential factors when it comes to personal appearance.
:[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 03:27, 30 June 2012 (EDT)
::AugustO, the Mosaic diet does not lead to obesity. See the [https://www.google.com/search?q=ultra-orthodox+jews&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=91idU-PwH8OzyASG1IGgBw&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAQ&biw=1024&bih=504 Google image search for ultra-orthodox Jews] Slim! Jesus, Moses, Elijah, Peter, and Paul were slim! I rest my case! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 04:29, 15 June 2014 (EDT)

== Richard Dawkins ==

Im surprised Richard Dawkins wasn;t there. Then again, it makes sense. The entire essay revolves around a fictional premise that atheists are obese in comparison to Christians.[[User:Brenden|brenden]] 16:04, 29 June 2012 (EDT)
:Isn't Richard Dawkins an agnostic? It is rather humorous that a founder of the [[New Atheism]] movement was an agnostic. :) Also, didn't 3/5 of the New Atheism movmement's founders have excess weight? See: [[New Atheism leadership's problem with excess weight]]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:19, 29 June 2012 (EDT)

== Seriously? ==

User:Conservative - you have once again deleted a comment of mine. It was not offensive, nor was it trolling. I request that you please restore it. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 16:22, 29 June 2012 (EDT)
::The brief discussion was pointless and was only going to lead to bickering. I have decided to move on. I will say for the record that I didn't initially create [[Essay: Gallery of obese atheists|the gallery]] nor did I add any pictures of new people. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:28, 29 June 2012 (EDT)
:::Do try to remember that you had to delete and oversight our "brief discussion" the next time you want to call someone a coward. And yes, while you didn't initially create ''this'' gallery, you are the only one on this site obsessed with creating all of the "Conservapedia hates fat people" articles - you know the ones where you say fat people are atheists, lesbians, homosexuals, blah, blah, blah. You pretend you're being helpful by providing the links to diets, etc., but the disdainful language surrounding the links trumps them. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 16:55, 29 June 2012 (EDT)
:::::For the record, I have never said that all overweight people are atheists or lesbians/homosexuals nor have I said that CP hates overweight people.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:01, 29 June 2012 (EDT)
::::::But you do not deny deleting and oversighting a discussion you had with SharonW. As she says, please remember that next time you throw out an accusation of cowardice or unwillingness to debate. I know that all those you make the accusation against certainly will. [[User:Davidspencer|Davidspencer]] 17:07, 29 June 2012 (EDT)
:::::::David, if you want to accuse me of cowardice despite my offers to debate prominent atheists/evolutionists, I am not particularly concerned. If you are a fan of the agnostic/evolutionist [[Richard Dawkins]] or [[Penn Jillette]] or fan of any other prominent evolutionists or atheists, I would encourage you to ask them to engage in written debate with me. For example, feel free to contact Dawkins about this open debate offer: [[Essay: Debate challenge for Richard Dawkins]]. My material has been read by a lot of people and given the current decline of [[global atheism]] and global agnosticism which is expected to accelerate and the decline of American evolutionism in the last 17 months [http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/06/american-young-earth-creationism.html], they clearly need to do something if the care about their religions. But if they want to fiddle while [[Essay: Penn Jillette, don't just stand there! Do something!|global atheism/agnosticism/evolutionism burns]] that is fine with me. My fellow Bible believing Christians and I have no problem roasting hot dogs and marshmellows (in moderation of course) on the bonfire of global atheism/agnosticism/evolutionism burning. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:02, 29 June 2012 (EDT)
Addendum: As far as oversighting a few sentences of material because I didn't want to be dragged into the ridiculous debate of whether Jesus was overweight, I have no regrets. Being charged with cowardice about the matter was rather humorous though. In retrospect, it was definitely one of the most humorous things to occur on CP. Jesus was a carpenter before the days of power tools and then he became a traveling preacher/prophet who did a lot of walking. Plus, he lived in the Middle East about 2,000 years ago and ate a healthy Mosaic diet. I very much doubt anyone is going to give someone an extended debate about this matter. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:07, 30 June 2012 (EDT)
::::::::Way to go once again with a strawman. You know nothing about me but because I point out that you removed a comment to prevent debate, whilst accusing others of cowardice of when they do not reply to your invitations on this site to debate, you feel free to make unfounded and unsupported assertions about me. But we all know that is your modus operandi and my pointing it out will not change anything will it? Incidentally, can you point me to a shop where I can but marshmellows, I rather fancy trying some roasted. [[User:Davidspencer|Davidspencer]] 02:09, 30 June 2012 (EDT)
::::::::::Silly! You get them in the Mellow Marshes. Obviously. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 02:52, 30 June 2012 (EDT)
:I don't want to indulge [[User:Conservative]] any more than I absolutely have to, but making a claim about an individual's diet 2000 years ago based on (what appear to be) cultural norms is fallacious and entirely speculative. For one, my guess would be that polytheists, in general, would also have a similar diet. By your argument, Christians are obese because Christian Americans eat fatty food (see the gallery above). [[User:GregG|GregG]] 00:12, 30 June 2012 (EDT)
:I forgot to add that it's really not fair to compare average weights of people in societies over 2000 years old (when starvation and food production are major issues) and today (where we have significantly increased our food production capacity; very few first-world people are starving to death). [[User:GregG|GregG]] 00:14, 30 June 2012 (EDT)
Greg, I have some modern pictures of ultra-orthodox Jews to offer as evidence that the Mosaic diet does not lead to obesity. See the [https://www.google.com/search?q=ultra-orthodox+jews&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=91idU-PwH8OzyASG1IGgBw&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAQ&biw=1024&bih=504 Google image search for ultra-orthodox Jews] Slim! Jesus, Moses, Elijah, Peter, and Paul were slim! I rest my case! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 04:49, 15 June 2014 (EDT)
::GregG, why don't you ask [[William Lane Craig]] to debate someone on this topic. If he thinks it is a serious topic, I am sure he will hold a debate on this matter. I hope you will forgive me for saying this, but I have my doubts Craig is going to hold a debate about this topic. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:34, 30 June 2012 (EDT)

Good grief, Conservative - you were blathering on about nobody wanting to buy a picture of a fat Jesus, and I pointed out that people buy pictures of Jesus portrayed as blond, blue-eyed Caucasian all the time, and that I doubted that Jesus actually looked like that. Those were the comments you over-sighted. There was no argument about whether or not Jesus was fat - I just pointed out that ''you can't possibly know for certain''. I have offered to debate you about your treatment of obese people, and you have refused. You are the one who accuses people of cowardice over not debating. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 01:00, 30 June 2012 (EDT)
::A general message to all re: the [[Atheism and obesity]] article:

::I have not had a campaign against overweight people in general.

::I merely pointed out the obesity in the atheist, homosexual and lesbian populations in the Western World. I also pointed out that atheists pretend to love science and science gives us abundance information on how to lose weight and the negative effects of being overweight. Workout an hour or more a day (strength training and aerobic exercise) and eat a sensible diet (reasonable amount of fruits and vegetables or Mediterranean diet or Zone diet, low glycemic foods, etc.) and the vast majority of people will lose the weight and keep it off with a reasonable amount of maintenance exercise. I provided all the information on how to lose weight and keep it off via a healthy lifestyle.

::I also pointed out that in 2005, there were 4 times as many Eastern World Christians as Western World Christians (and that Eastern World people have healthier lifestyles in general) and there is a significant amount of data indicating that the very religious in America live healthier lifestyles than others in America. Plus, I gave sound research indicating that religion in the West tends to increase self-discipline (all other things remaining equal of course).

::In addition, I pointed out that there seems to be a higher incidence of obesity within the homosexual population and provided sound evidence. Most homosexuals are liberals and liberals purport to love science so I don't see why this is not fair to point out.

::I also pointed out that people cannot reasonably claim that Jesus, Moses, Peter and the Apostle Paul were overweight. For example, there are several Bible passages against gluttony and sloth. The Bible is definitely not friendly to gluttony and sloth. Given that many Western atheists presently scoff at how superior their ideology is over a biblical worldview this is certainly fair to point out.

::I realize that the Western World has become prosperous and history teaches us that prosperity in a culture can lead to complacency and those cultures declining/falling. As a result, advocating self-discipline is not going to be a popular idea among many at the present time. Recently, [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bqeeFhnlHvk a book came out] essentially saying that overweight people in general need to be more self-disciplined, personally responsible and more mentally tough and if memory serves he ignited caller complaints after his public appearances (By the way, the author is an ex overweight guy and it appears he is a libertarian atheist or at least anti-Bible).

::Lastly, as far as the [[Overweight atheists comedy and satire]], atheists (and liberals) sure seem willing to dish out satire, but I have noticed that they can dish it out, but they can't take it. Could atheist pride be the issue? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:11, 30 June 2012 (EDT)

:::I was wondering [[User:Conservative|Conservative]]. You quite rightly, in my opinion, have a dislike of obese people - especially atheists. Are you willing to reveal the weight of the collective known as [[User:Conservative|Conservative]]? Personally I am 5 foot 10 inches and weigh (currently) 14 stone. What do you (and/or your respective contributors) weigh. If you are unwilling to reveal the number of members of your collective (a somewhat socialist concept I must say) then an average weight will do if you are willing to provide it. [[User:Davidspencer|Davidspencer]] 10:42, 30 June 2012 (EDT)
[[File:Sun Tzu portrait.jpg|thumbnail|right|200px|"Subtle! Subtle! They become formless. Mysterious! Mysterious! They become soundless. Therefore, they are the masters of the enemy's fate." - [[Sun Tzu]] ]]
::::David, do you understand the difference between fact and opinion? You certainly have provided no proof and evidence that I/we dislike obese people - none! :) Secondly, within reason people rightly like others who stick to their guns on matters and prior to User:Conservative's material on obesity and the atheism/homosexuality, User: Conservative did say that no identifying information would be give on us/me. :) Of course, it goes without saying that this policy will continue. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:08, 30 June 2012 (EDT)

:::::Maybe not "dislike", as "determined to constantly and consistently portray in as negative a manner as possible" with as many links to things you ''do'' dislike. I personally don't see much difference. [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 09:47, 2 July 2012 (EDT)

===Biblical position===
Is the Bible really so strongly against overeating, as [[user:Conservative]] says?

Jesus only discusses the topic once, in Matthew Chapter 11 (and also as recounted in Luke), where he addresses accusations, presumably made by those killjoy Pharisees, that ''he himself'' was a glutton. He doesn't seem remotely troubled by the accusations, does not bother to deny or refute them, and seems to say that it doesn't really matter whether one chooses to be abstemious (like John the Baptist) or indulgent (like the Son of Man).

So I don't think [[user:Conservative]]'s claim that "[t]he Bible is definitely not friendly to gluttony" really gives the whole story. And I would rather agree with Jesus than with the Pharisees, who presumably also thought there was a biblical basis for their own misguided finger-wagging.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 05:02, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
:::CPalmer, as you are probably aware, the Apostle Paul declared: "All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;" (2 Timothy 3:16). Accordingly, when it comes to the issues of gluttony and sloth, these portions of the Bible also need to be taken into account: Old Testament (such as Proverbs), the words of the Apostle Paul and the Apostle Peter and any other Bible verses on this matter. Christians should not inadvertently or intentionally employ the [[fallacy of exclusion]] when informing themselves on these issues. Here are some verses in the Bible on gluttony: [http://www.openbible.info/topics/gluttony Biblical teaching on gluttony]. Biblical teaching on laziness/sloth: http://codybateman.wordpress.com/2006/09/10/laziness-introduction-and-bible-study-guide/

:::In addition, it would be unwise for Christians to ignore what medical science and other disciplines of science indicate on these matters. (see: [[Physical and mental health related problems associated with obesity]]). Besides the obvious benefit of feeling better and having more energy and thus getting more done through avoiding the besetting sins of gluttony and sloth (Paul did command Christians to be good stewards and to make the most of their time), preventative medicine is often better than treating illness after the fact.

:::I realize that working out and eating right are not always fun and require self-discipline. But like most things in life, in most cases, it merely requires replacing bad habits with good habits. The reason why many diets fail is that people never establish a healthy lifestyle via establishing good habits. In addition, people can do things to make exercise more fun or productive (music, audio books, etc.).
[[File:Hong Kong Christians at Gateway Camp.jpg|thumbnail|right|250px|[[Hong Kong]] Christians at Gateway Camp. In 2005, there were four times as many non-Western World Christians as there were [[Western World]] Christians.[http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=30077]
 
(photo obtained from [http://www.flickr.com/photos/mckln/4815046728/in/set-72157624550425162 Flickr], see [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/2.0/deed.en license agreement])]]

:::Next, I do think that Christians need to be informed about church history plus not have a myopic view of the world. In many cases, it could be argued that at the present time the Western World church is behaving like the undisciplined Church at Corinth which the Apostle Paul had to correct.[http://www.churchleaders.com/?news=139580/] Let's not forget, there are plenty of Christians in the world who are living healthy lifestyles and avoiding the sins of gluttony and sloth. See: [[Global Christianity]]

:::Lastly, there are certainly self-disciplined Christians in the West and no doubt some of them were a part of the Gallup survey and other social science data (see: [[Atheism and obesity]]). For example, in the journal article ''Religion, self-regulation, and self-control: Associations, explanations, and implications'', psychologists McCullough and Willoughby theorize that many of the positive links of religiousness with health and social behavior may be caused by religion's beneficial influences on [[self-control]]/self-regulation.[http://www.psy.miami.edu/faculty/mmccullough/Papers/Relig_self_control_bulletin.pdf][http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19210054] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:20, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
::::I see you are siding with the Pharisees, then.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 12:03, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
::::Here are the questions that I think you need to consider. They are in two groups, one focusing on Jesus' position, and one on that of the Pharisees:
::::'''JESUS:''' Do you agree that Jesus seems to say that gluttony isn't really a big deal in Matthew 11? You seem to think that it is a big deal - are you therefore saying that Jesus was wrong? Or is it more important now than it was - if Jesus was on earth nowadays and was accused of being a glutton, do you think he would deny the accusation more vigorously? Or would Jesus, if on earth today, follow a strict diet so that the accusation would not be made? Why did he not do so in the first century?

::::'''PHARISEES:''' One way the Pharisees attacked Jesus was by calling him a glutton. Do you think they were right or justified to do so? How do your accusations of gluttony, used to attack atheists and homosexuals, differ from the Pharisees' attacks on Jesus, if at all? What do you think was the Pharisees' basis for being against gluttony? Would it have been scriptural? Would it have been justified? How would it have differed, if at all, from your own scriptural basis? Is it possible that you have followed the same process as the Pharisees in arriving at your own views about gluttony?--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 08:16, 3 July 2012 (EDT)
CPalmer, the Mosaic diet does not lead to obesity. See the [https://www.google.com/search?q=ultra-orthodox+jews&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=91idU-PwH8OzyASG1IGgBw&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAQ&biw=1024&bih=504 Google image search for ultra-orthodox Jews] Slim! Jesus, Moses, Elijah, Peter, and Paul were slim! I rest my case! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 04:29, 15 June 2014 (EDT)

==Article Structure==
This article seems a bit overly complex in its structure. When there are 54 sections in the contents bar, it seems to me that some of these could be merged or deleted without changing the overall flow of the article too much. I don't intend to make any particular changes, because certain admins seem to have a lot of effort invested in this article, and I'd rather not irritate people higher up the food chain than me, but that's my opinion at this point.--[[User:DTSavage|DTSavage]] 14:42, 24 September 2012 (EDT)
:Addendum: If the particular example subsections could be organized in some way (possibly alphabetical by last name), I feel that that might help with the readability of the article to some extent.--[[User:DTSavage|DTSavage]] 14:47, 24 September 2012 (EDT)
[[File:Hand and cookies.jpg|thumbnail|right|200px|Obesity is positively associated with [[neuroticism]], impulsiveness, and lower [[self-control|self-discipline]].
 
 
(photo obtained from [http://www.flickr.com/photos/waytoocrowded/1899823572/ Flickr], see [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/deed.en license agreement])]]
:::When deciding the order of the pictures, I LARGELY used a combination of chronological order, the prominence of the atheist and their atheism and obesity "weight class". Should some of these atheists follow the recommendations of [[medical science]], [[nutritional science]] and [[exercise science]], I may move them lower down the in article.

:::There are a number of topics within and related to the atheism and obesity such as irreligion and irrationality (see: [[Irreligion and superstition]]). Some of the causes of obesity are neuroticism, impulsiveness, anger and lower self-discipline issues (see: [[Atheism and obesity]]). Of course, these causes of obesity are also related to irrationality and God-hating. See also: [[Causes of atheism]]). [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:03, 24 September 2012 (EDT)
== Unlock this page please ==
I have material to add--[[User:JerryCa|JerryCa]] 01:20, 6 April 2014 (EDT)
:Please clarify. And if it is a study, have the study have a large data set, be well-designed and control for important variables such as socioeconomic factors.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 08:56, 6 April 2014 (EDT)
::Do I have to justify my postings to you? Surely the very concept of a wiki is to combine resources. I wanted to add some obese atheists but if you do not want help forget it.--[[User:JerryCa|JerryCa]] 17:08, 6 April 2014 (EDT)
:::JerryCa, I am not worried about a shortage of prominent, obese atheists featured in the article. The article features a robust collection of prominent, obese atheists. But feel free to make suggestions on the talk page of the article in the latter part of 5/2019 when your block expires.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 04:55, 15 June 2014 (EDT)

== Mention the Book of Daniel, the scientific experiment in Daniel with a control group and the Daniel diet plan ==

Mention the Book of Daniel, the scientific experiment in Daniel with a control group and the Daniel diet plan mentioned [http://users.adam.com.au/bstett/BObesity155.html HERE]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 03:14, 9 October 2014 (EDT)

== Kim Jong-un ==
You can add this: "[http://english.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2014/05/08/2014050801606.html N.Korean Leader Getting Fatter]." Tha man's immoral behavior may be causing him to find solace in exessive eating. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] 04:15, 10 October 2014 (EDT)
:Upon your request, I added it. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 04:26, 10 October 2014 (EDT)

==Erasmus Darwin==
Corpulent Grandad Erasmus died when Charles Darwin was a little boy. Please explain how he was an evolutionist. It's like saying my grandfather (who died when I was a little boy) worked with wood and was interested in classical music. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 01:52, 26 October 2014 (EDT)
==Medical opinion==
Conservative, with the acception of Dr. Stephen Joseph, who does not really support your claims, can you point to a medical professional who agrees with your assessment? Also can you show me a a respectable source that shows that the USA is not the the most obese nation in the world? I don't want you to question my religious affiliation or point me to one of your other articles I just want to see an unbiased opinion that agrees with you. Can you do that?--[[User:Tomqua|Tomqua]] 10:13, 19 March 2015 (EDT)

=== Making sure you are not a proud atheist who engages in the fallacy of exclusion ===

Just to make sure you are not an [[Atheism and arrogance|arrogant atheist]] who engages in the [[fallacy of exclusion]], I have some questions for you before I am willing to continue:

1. Does the atheist community in the [[Western World]] have a problem with obesity and do they have a greater problem with obesity than religious Africa? See also: [[Secular Europe and obesity]]

2. Are there a number of prominent atheists with excess weight issues? Does medical science have effective methods to lose weight? Do nutritionists and exercise scientists have effective methods of losing weight such as cutting out processed foods, eating a low calorie and low fat diet combined with vigorous exercise? If so, why are so many of the overweight atheists featured in this article still overweight? Do they love pie and other fattening foods and also love being a coach potato more than they love science?

3. Based on the historical data, which historically likely had a greater problem with obesity: Jesus and his disciples or the leadership of the New Atheist movement? See: [[New Atheism leadership's problem with excess weight]] and [[Jesus Christ, the apostles and the Mediterranean diet/Mosaic diet]]. Also, please see these [https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Orthodox+Jews%22&rlz=1C2AVNA_enUS588US588&biw=1024&bih=667&tbm=isch&source=lnms&sa=X&ei=4xhQVPD0KsyfyATQxoCwBA&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAQ tons of pictures] of Orthodox Jews which I presume eat a Mosaic diet. Notice how slim they are!

4. Is the atheist PZ Myers overweight in [https://gaylejordan.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/dsc02944.jpg THIS PICTURE] - especially in his abdominal area?

5. With increasing prosperity, does atheistic China have an ever growing obesity problem? See: [[China and obesity]]. A recent study published in the ''Obesity Reviews'' journal, found that Chinese teenagers' rate of [[diabetes]] was four times that of their [[United States|American]] peers.[http://www.china.org.cn/china/2012-09/14/content_26521029.htm] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:16, 19 March 2015 (EDT)
:::Questions for you:

1: Do young people visit Conservapedia?

2: Do many young people have problem with weight whilst going through or recently gone through puberty?

3:Do many of these people have crisis of religion during these times?

4:Are many of these people impressionable enough to believe what you say?

The answer to all the above is yes. So many of them will look at this article and believe it to be the answer, it is not. These people need medical advice about their weight and reading your article they will not get it. Therefore you are being downright irresponsible preaching it.--[[User:Tomqua|Tomqua]] 15:31, 19 March 2015 (EDT)
::Tomqua, thank you for confirming that you are a proud atheist who engages in the fallacy of exclusion. Pride - one of the biggest achilles' heels of atheism! See also: [[Atheism and arrogance]]. If you are unwilling to address evidence, which I clearly showed, please cease wasting my time. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:38, 19 March 2015 (EDT)
:::I have confirmed nothing of the sort. Are you an atheist? You display many of the traits you pin on atheists. I am a Christian but do not recognize you as such. Gods message is love, yours is hatred.--[[User:Tomqua|Tomqua]] 15:41, 19 March 2015 (EDT)
:::Speaking of fallacies, ever heard of Ad Hominem? You know I am correct and cannot find fault with my reasoning so you attack me instead?--[[User:Tomqua|Tomqua]] 15:43, 19 March 2015 (EDT)

Talk:Atheism and obesity

2015-03-19T19:41:20Z

Tomqua: /* Medical opinion */

Talk:Atheism and obesity

2015-03-19T19:31:33Z

Tomqua: /* Making sure you are not a proud atheist who engages in the fallacy of exclusion */

==Opinion from a Christian==
After skimming through these discussions, I can't believe the arguments going on and which are not going on. I enjoy conservapedia, and always check for an
article here first, and go to Wikipedia if I cannot find it here. I was telling my friend at work (She's a Christian female also) two days ago about this site as a great
Wikipedia alternative in response to a question she had, and was rudely interrupted by another of our coworkers (this ones NOT a Christian, he's a liberal smart
aleck immature boy in his 20s) who shouted "Conservapedia? HAH have you seen their page calling non-christians fat? Not sure if that's going to pass as a
Scholarly source" or something similar to that. He then pulled up this page and started reading it out loud. I have never been so embarrassed in my life. Fat jokes?
I skimmed and found the main argument on this page concerning studies and whether it's true or not, but do I really have to explain this?

It doesn't matter whether or not it's true, because considering the number of people in both groups (millions of Christians! Even atheists I'm sure are 100,000 in the
US. There are going to be a whole lot of obese Christians, thin Christians, obese atheists, and thin atheists. The immature kid at my work is thinner than I am,
which is natural considering the sample sizes involved. Even if it's true, that means that in real life situations the reverse will happen (the atheist coworker would be
fatter than me) slightly more often. Well in case the person or persons who made this page are so out of touch from Christians in the real world, it makes us seem
petty and childish calling the fat guy fat! And in the 40% or whatever times that the Christian is fatter than the atheist (my situation at work), it makes us seem
petty, childish, and just wrong because the fat girl is calling the skinny guy fat ! What purpose is this page supposed to serve other than being embarrassing?

I'll spell this out even simpler: two situations. Situation 1: Fat atheist, the article seems true, and the fat atheist gets sympathy bc Christians are making fun of his
weight. Situation 2: Skinny atheist, and Christians putting forth this site as a better alternative to Wikipedia looks delusional.

Until this filth is removed i will most certainly not be putting my personal recommendation (and by extension, reputation) to this site. So angry, it feels like my son
back in middle school when I'd get calls from his teacher and I'd have to apologize for his behaving like 2 year old in class. NOT Christian-like and NOT helpful -Patty

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)
:JamesTimmons, why didn't you cite the journal articles and other relevant data in the article. That should have put the matter to rest. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 04:21, 15 June 2014 (EDT)
:::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- http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42256829/ns/health-diet_and_nutrition/ 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)
:And addition reason occurred to me why the NorthWestern U study is suspect and why the abundant data I cited in the article is a more accurate picture of the current state of affairs. It appears that they picked poor inner city churches in the USA. Research indicates that a lower socioeconomic status is related to higher rates of obesity.[http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism_and_obesity#cite_note-60] Therefore, the overall culture/practices of those churches would tend to be more prone to obesity inducing practices (donuts after church instead of a yuppie, suburban church juice bar; fatty foods at frequent church gatherings, etc. etc. Please see the very relevant [http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/4490719-460/religion-and-obesity-study-links-church-and-being-fat.html comments of Courtney Parker above] related to church gatherings in his particular city. So even if the researchers tried to use regression analysis to limit the effect of an individual's socioeconomic status as far as the overall analysis, the overall cultural practices of the inner city churches they seemed to predominantly pick would still creep in.

:Plus, most Christians are not in the Western World and quite slim plus I cited a wealth of other data such as researchers finding that religious faith increases a person's amount of self-control, the Gallup data, religious people living longer, etc. etc. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:40, 24 August 2014 (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 instead 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)
::MaxFlethcher, what makes you think that the [[User: Conservative]] account is edited by merely one person? No true skeptic believes this. Second, you provided no evidence that this article is an attack on atheism. Obesity is an important societal problem in the Western World and in many other parts of the world. This article provides data that help people better understand the issue of [[Atheism and obesity]] and it cites data from a wide variety of relevant sources. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 04:13, 15 June 2014 (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)
Sharon, thank you. This article pains me, as an overweight, hard-working Christian. Attacking people for their appearance and body type is to me a lot more of an atheistic, MTV generation behavior. I'm very disturbed to see such superficial bullying (using much less solid evidence) coming from our camp. Judge people by their works and their words and not by their bodies.[[User:KingHanksley|KingHanksley]] 16:06, 14 December 2011 (EST)

==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)
::NateK, given your comment about wanting to punch someone in the nose (someone trained in a martial art who you couldn't hit in the nose if you wanted to), you are hardly in a position to lecture on decorum! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 05:08, 15 June 2014 (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)

:Setting aside whether or not [[Penn Jillette]] offered a good reason, is this often correct?: J. P. Morgan: " A man always has two reasons for doing anything: a good reason and the real reason." The reason I ask is due to this: [[Sye Ten Bruggencate's debate challenge to atheist Penn Jillette]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:26, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
:::[[Essay: This year's best atheist debaters]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 07:17, 4 August 2011 (EDT)

::Was this comment placed here by accident?
::*It doesn't have to do anything with the comment above.
::*User:Human is blocked indefinitely, so he won't answer timely.
::*Traditionally, new stuff goes to the end of a thread...
::[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 01:25, 19 September 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)

My previous comment seemed to be not civil enough, so I try to rephrase my statement: I'm well aware that ''successfully'' is a quite ambiguous term, and I don't want to put to much into it. On various occasions has User:Conservative expressed his desire to debate atheists and/or evolutionist like [[Richard Dawkins]] and [[Penn Jillette]]. He (or even she!) chooses not to bolster his stature by citing any off-site activity or qualification, so the seriousness of his challenges can only be measured by his contributions to this site.

He has created ample content. But the talk pages give you a perfect arena for an actual debate (especially as User:Conservative seems to have a virtual event in mind when he ushers his challenges). So, what is more natural then to look for a discussion on these talk pages to see how good a debater User:Conservative is? As I couldn't find an example of such a discussion where User:Conservative faired well, I asked him to provide me with such an example, i.e., his best shot(s) on these debate grounds.

An impressive amount of such debates would help to take User:Conservative's challenges more serious. But unfortunately User:Conservative hasn't provided me with a link yet.

Thanks, [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 14:18, 16 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 in terms of isolating the variable of religiousness/atheistic. For example, 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)
Conservative, I want to apology for my agressive behavior last week. I would be glad if we could start this over. I understand that this article does not state that all atheists are fat but it clearly imply that being an atheist give you more chance to being obese. Can you please tell me why you think we cannot compare religion and diet between different countries ?--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 19:42, 18 September 2011 (EDT)

== Some observations ==

I know that this hardly counts as a scientific study, but out of interest I went through the list of speakers at The Amazing Meeting 9, a sceptical and atheist event that was held in Las Vegas in July, and checked photos of all the speakers. To reduce the variables as much as possible I considered only American speakers, of whom there were 36. Of these, FOUR (PZ Myers, Pamela Gay, Heidi Anderson and Maria Walters) appeared to be seriously overweight or obese, and Pamela Gay is not an atheist. As a third of US adults are obese this (admittedly crude) study suggests that it is not a problem linked in any significant way to atheism. If anybody can suggest a way to look at this in more detail I'd be happy to do what I can. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 12:34, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
:::SamCoulter, for the sake of discussion lets assume that is true. With that being said, it depends on who you are comparing contemporary American atheists to. Are you comparing them to Jesus? Are you comparing the founders of the New Atheism movement to the American general public (3 out of 5 of the founders of the New Atheism movement have had problems with being overweight)? Are you comparing them to the very religious? Are you comparing them to the the bulk of Christianity which is in the non-Western World? Are you comparing them to Moses who certainly had a lot to say about diet? In any event, atheists say they believe in science and we know what science says about obesity (medical science, nutritional science and exercise science). Certainly a group of prominent atheists being prominent in the waist is an embarrassment especially since many atheists claim two things: atheism is in accordance with good science and theism is not and atheists are intellectually superior. BY the way, given that being overweight/obese is a causal factor for brain impairment, an overeweight/obese atheist claiming intellectual superiority is problematic. Lastly, since some atheists probably believe that society is evolving upward, contemporary American atheists being more overweight than mankind was in general earlier is problematic as well. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:28, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
::::No, atheists say that they DON'T believe in God. The majority of them certainly are attached to the scientific method, but then again so are the majority of western Christians. I don't think we help ourselves by misrepresenting what atheists believe. For the record I am comparing prominent American atheists to the US population in general, and it doesn't look like they're any more prone to obesity. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 13:39, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::Sam, you didn't adequately respond to my posts that atheism is more than merely not believing in God which I thought was very shoddy. Second, I cite: "Social Darwinism claims that society is evolving upward from our primitive beginnings to the point where we reach a state of utopia."[http://mnorthernlights.blogspot.com/2009/01/darwin-day-2009.html] Certainly, highly religious Bible believers do not believe in social Darwinism so time periods of atheists getting plumper are not problematic to biblical Christianity. Also, how attached are overweight/obese atheists to the scientific method? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:50, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::Atheists say that's what atheism is, and the difference between not believing in gods and denying the existence of gods is in any case more semantic than anything else: Me: "Do you deny the existence of God?" Atheist: "Yes." Me: "Why?" Atheist: "Because I don't believe in gods." Social Darwinism has nothing to do with the theory of evolution and claiming that it does just gives evolutionists an opening to attack your credibility. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 14:00, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
::Do atheists say what atheism is or do encyclopedias of philosophy? If someone says they are Napolean is he? Why is the definition more semantic than anything else and how does it affect the burden of proof as far as the existence of God? Next, where did I say Social Darwinism is the exactly the same as macroevolution? The more I interact with you and you fail to adequately respond to my questions and the material I post to you, the less worthwhile I am finding it to respond to you. Don't be surprised if I cease to respond to you. Perhaps, you should consider adequately responding to the backlog of questions I have posed to you and more adequately respond to what I have posted to you. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 14:11, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
:::My opinion is that atheists get to say what it is. Your opinion is clearly different; fine, that's your right. However if someone says "I'm an atheist," and you say "Then according to my encyclopaedia of philosophy you believe X" and he replies "Well, I don't," what does that mean? That he's lying, that he's not an atheist or that your encyclopaedia is wrong? Secondly, I never claimed that you DID say social Darwinism is exactly the same as macroevolution; I just pointed out that it has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with evolutionary theory, because it doesn't. Finally, we seem to have a different perception on whether or not I've adequately responded to your questions and again that is your right, but it's also mine. No offence, but there are some questions - such as why is this article based on a study that talks about neither atheism nor obesity - that you haven't answered too well yourself. I am NOT trying to get into a fight with you or anyone else here; I am trying to expand Conservapedia into a valuable educational resource that will turn people away from atheism and evolutionism, as are you. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 14:28, 16 September 2011 (EDT)

== Challenge for User:Conservative ==

''BY the way, given that obesity is a causal factor for brain impairment, an obese atheist claiming intellectual superiority is problematic.'' quote by [[User:Conservative]]

So now you claim there are no smart fat people. Wow, just... wow.

70 to 76% of Americans self-identify as Christian. 2-5% of Americans self-identify as atheists. 33.8% of Americans are overweight/obese. There is obviously a much greater problem within the Christian community than in the atheist community, by sheer numbers alone, yet Conservapedia turns a blind eye to this issue. It also ignores "normal weight obesity", where skinny people can be fatties without even knowing it.

You keep challenging people to debate you on atheism. Well, I'm not an atheist, and I don't know much about that subject, but I ''am'' overweight. I'm challenging you to a debate about how horribly Conservapedia treats obese people in their articles. Simple rules - written responses with one post (no edits); the topic is '''''just obesity''''', not atheism, homosexuality, evolutionism, feminism, etc. and so forth (I can't remember all the labels you've tried to slap on fat people); answers due the last Saturday of October. You can pick the moderator.

Or I'll post my phone number and you can tell me in person why you '''''flat-out ignore''''' the fat Christians or the fat creationists or the fat heterosexuals or all of the intelligent, talented , good, nice fat people who live in this country in your diatribes. I'll pay for the phone call. Whichever one you want to choose is fine with me. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 14:08, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
::::Sharon, where did a claim that there are no smart/talented/etc. overweight/obese people? I didn't and I don't think it is fair for you to misrepresent what I have written. For example, certainly it is possible in some cases for someone starting with an IQ of 200 to suffer brain impairment, yet still be smart. In terms of "intellectual superiority", it all depends on who you are comparing a person to. Plus, we really don't to what degree many health related weight problems are so Conservapedia offering material on the affects of excess weight plus various solutions for many people's problems with being overweight is a public service. I do know that in many cases the health effects of being overweight in terms of symptoms can be reversed to a large degree via weight loss. Also, given that many maladies are progressive in terms of their effects, it is better for people to be educated on the effects of being overweight sooner rather than later. Next, given that I cite responsible sources for my articles in terms of their claims such as medical journals citing research, etc., I see no reason to debate you. If you had claimed that specific statements in my articles were wrong and attempted to offer evidence to the contrary that might be different, but this is not the case plus I have used responsible sources for my articles such as medical journals citing research, etc. Lastly, thanks for the offer to have a phone discussion, but I think I will decline at this time. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 14:57, 16 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::::No, you haven't actually ''written'' the words that there are no smart/talented/etc. overweight/obese people, you have simply ''implied'' it. Reread the quote at the top of this section. Look at the articles you've written that associate obesity with things that you don't believe in. Look at the articles you've '''''not''''' written about obesity - the fact that there is an issue within the Christian community; that it's an issue among heterosexuals, etc.; that there is some debate on whether a person can be overweight and still be healthy; that thin people can also be considered to have "normal weight obesity". I haven't argued about the medical information you've provided - it's the ''application'' of that information that I'm protesting. You use "obese" as a pejorative, and that's not right. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 20:24, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
::::Sharon, I am not going to spend time addressing what I supposedly said "between the lines", implied, etc. If my critics don't want to show me where I made a mistake in what I actually wrote then so be it. Secondly, if you want to open a debate page entitled "Can a person be overweight and still be healthy?" then please be my guest. Given the massive amount of research that has been done on the effects of being overweight by the medical community and the biblical admonitions against overeating, I think you face an uphill battle but if you want to fight this battle with those who disagree with you, then so be it. Also, how can being overweight be an issue within a community as you suggest above, but still be healthy? Over in overweight means too much. If there are no adverse effects to being overweight (unhealthy to be overweight), then are they '''over'''weight? If you want to address the central issue, then I suggest you open the debate page I suggested. If you do open such a debate page, I would suggest you provide counter evidence to each of the sources I used on the effects of being overweight (effect on longevity, effects on brain function, etc. etc. etc. ). I do realize that there are health risks associated with being underweight and that health is more than just BMI/weight and that mortality does not necessarily mean quality of life (joint problems associated with being overweight, impaired brain function, etc.), but I don't think you can show me that any of the information I presented were examples of healthy lifestyles being shown as unhealthy. ([[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:14, 17 September 2011 (EDT)
Sharon, I might have used another Conservapedians claims/source about BMI rather than use my own and a responsible source seems to have been used. If I did use another Conservapedians BMI source, I used a BMI of over 25 as being overweight. Here is something I just read from a 2010 source: "After analyzing data on 1.46 million mostly white, non-Hispanic adults who participated in 19 long-term studies — each designed to follow participants for between 5 to 28 years — researchers determined that, overall, a BMI (or body mass index, a ratio of height and weight that determines overweight and obesity) between 20.0 and 24.9 was associated with the lowest risk of death in healthy non-smoking adults." [http://healthland.time.com/2010/12/03/whats-the-ideal-bmi-for-longevity] The [[Mayo Clinic]] which has a high reputation for giving sound health advice concurs with this figure. [http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/bmi-calculator/NU00597] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:12, 17 September 2011 (EDT)
:::One last thing, this is a volunteer wiki and people can within reason choose the topics of the articles they write on depending on their interests and what they feel the public might be interested in and use such things as the Conservapedia commandments in order to have a good article (cite sources, etc.). If you want to do the requisite amount of research an write good articles on topics such as [[Heterosexuality and obesity]], etc. etc. then be my guest. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:26, 18 September 2011 (EDT)

::::Actually, I'm planning two articles: [[Negative stereotypes in society and obesity]] and [[Christian and weight issues]]. The first is prevelant (see [[atheism and obesity]], with its numerous pictures of atheists, dictators, murderers, etc., and not one person who has a positive reputation with Christians], and the second is actually a greater problem than [[atheism and obesity]], given that Christians are supposed to follow the Bible's teachings, as you've pointed out. I'm sure there are numerous examples for both articles. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 11:50, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::::I did some poking around the internet. If you write the articles, I would suggest not titling an article [[Christian and weight issues]] as it does not seem to be a popular search engine search so people will not find your article. Also, based on Google suggestions, here are some more prevalent searches via the search engines if you want to write on these topics: [[Obesity stereotypes]] and [[Christian weight loss]] and [[Christian weight loss programs]]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:23, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::User:Conservative is right. To maximise viewers, you should either use search-friendly titles such as the ones he suggests, or else create links to your articles from others that will get a lot of search hits (I assume [[Atheism and obesity]] is in this category).--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:00, 19 September 2011 (EDT)

Thank you for the concern about the popularity of my proposed articles, but popularity has never been a driving force in my life.

I was going to write these articles; in fact, the one about 'Christians and weight issues' was completed on my hard-drive within hours of posting my last comment on this talk page, complete with a list of prominent/notable Christians who are overweight/obese. I was (and still am) disgusted and angry about the obesity articles that are here on CP, and CP's policy that it is an acceptable conservative/Christian practice to attack someone's appearance when the real issue is a difference in ideology. After stepping away from this issue for several days to cool down, I realized my proposed articles were exactly the same as CP's articles on obesity, and I won't lower myself to that level.

Over the years, I've dealt with mean-spirited, thoughtless, childish, inconsiderate behavior from people due to weight issues. Sometimes it is unintentional; other times, such as in these articles, it is a deliberate action.

You claim these articles are a "public service" to share information on the dangers of obesity. I say hooey to that. If that were truly the case, there would be the single, main article about [[obesity]] on CP, complete with the important information about the associated health risks, and all of these articles attempting to link obesity with atheism/evolution/homosexuality/lesbianism/feminism, etc. wouldn't exist.

I would have a lot more respect if you just came out and '''admitted''' you are using "obese" as an insult directed toward people you don't like. You know it's true, and so do I. If it wasn't deliberate, you would be willing to talk with me about the situation, as I proposed earlier, and there would be more acknowledgement in CP's articles that obesity is an issue that isn't restricted to those people with whom you disagree, but also with religious people, straight people, creationists, etc. Also, there wouldn't be "fat jokes" like 'how much wax would be needed to create an obese atheist museum' showing up on the talk pages. (By the way – ha, ha. Heaven knows I've never heard a variation of ''that'' joke before.)

Do I expect the situation to change? No. Obesity is a too-easily-applied ''ad hominem'', and it appears there is much enjoyment here on CP in using it. But you should '''''strongly''''' consider arguing the ''issues'' (atheism, homosexuality, feminism, etc. and so forth) instead of taking the easy way out and attacking the person. It's the grown-up thing to do. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 15:28, 22 September 2011 (EDT)

== Might be of interest ==

An interesting comparison of [http://blog.hunch.com/?p=48884 dietary habits]. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:26, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
:That seems like a liberal-run sight trying to make conservatives look unhealthy and unsophisticated. They way it's written appears very deceptive. [[User:RSnelik|RSnelik]] 17:38, 18 September 2011 (EDT)

A lot depends on how you define conservative. Are they for limited government which includes the United States not being the world's policeman? Are they for nation building? Are neoconservatives being counted as conservatives?

For example:
"I have always given it as my decided opinion that no nation has a right to intermeddle in the internal concerns of another; that every one has a right to form and adopt whatever government they liked best to live under themselves; and that if this country could, consistently with its engagements, maintain a strict neutrality and thereby preserve peace, it was bound to do so by motives of policy, interest, and every other consideration. - George Washington, from Letter to James Monroe, August 25,1796.

Also:
"Hence , likewise , they will avoid the necessity of those overgrown military establishments which, under any form of government are inauspicious to liberty, and which are to be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty." - George Washington

Given the size of the U.S. Federal Government deficit and some Republicans having budget deficits, it seems to me as if the "conservatives" who want the United States to have an overgrown military are not doing a lot of deep thinking plus are not very disciplined and would be more given to making poor dietary choices. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:51, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
:::Here is another point: There is no indication that Moses was fat or that kosher diets lead to obesity. Also, the "Kosher Diet is not a weight loss diet per se, but its emphasis on fruits and vegetables, fish and it's lack of...high-fat pork products...can make it an eating plan that supports healthy eating and a healthy relationship to food."[http://www.dietsinreview.com/diets/kosher-diet/] Christianity has arguably had the greatest impact on Western Civilization and Christianity is a very conservative religion that says it is the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies. The Mayo Clinic says that the Mediterranean diet is a healthy diet. [http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/mediterranean-diet/CL00011] Jesus, the carpenter and traveling preacher who was not fat, was the founder of Christianity and he ate a kosher diet probably influenced by the Mediterranean diet. Thus, while Jesus is not a conservative in the 20th century political sense, he definitely was more conservative and slimmer than overweight and obese atheists/evolutionists. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:31, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
::::Conservative, you cannot compare the diet of Jesus to the diet of 21th century evolutionnists. It is 2 different times with completely different diets. And what make you think that Jesus was conservative ? He surely had pretty modern ideas for this time.--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 19:38, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::Also, the Apostle Peter who lived in Rome, probably was not overweight either and many present day Italians incorporate a Mediterranean diet. In addition, "In Europe, Italy was the only country where average weights actually dropped, and, along with France and Switzerland, it's home to some of Europe's slimmest people on average." [http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,14818710,00.html] I think Penn Jillette needs to ask himself, "What would Jesus or Michael Sylvester Gardenzio Stallone eat?" :) Also, unlike the overweight atheist Penn Jillette, Michael Sylvester Gardenzio Stallone is known for his [[Essay: Does Richard Dawkins have machismo?|machismo]]! :) See also: [[Sye Ten Bruggencate's debate challenge to atheist Penn Jillette]] See also: [[Sye Ten Bruggencate's debate challenge to atheist Penn Jillette]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:50, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::::Conservative, for Italy, France and Switzerland are countries with very high ratio of atheists, I fail to see how this helps your cause.--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 19:55, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
Do you believe that the atheist Penn Jillette has more [[Essay: Does Richard Dawkins have machismo?|machismo]] than the conservative Christian Chuck Norris and the Italian stallion Michael Sylvester Gardenzio Stallone? See also: [[Sye Ten Bruggencate's debate challenge to atheist Penn Jillette]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:58, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
::Conservative, what does machismo have to do with obesity ?--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 20:00, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
:::Yes, I am slightly confused also. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 20:02, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::Atheists and liberals often have great difficulty understanding the concept of [[Essay: Does Richard Dawkins have machismo?|machismo]]. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:06, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::Well I am neither and I fail to see the relevance to this discussion. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 20:07, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
::::"I like [[John McCain|McCain]] a lot. A lot. The script that's being written - and the reality - is pretty brutal and pretty hard-edged like a rough action film, and you need somebody who's been in that to deal with it." - Michael Sylvester Gardenzio Stallone [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:26, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::I'm sorry? I still don't understand. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 20:30, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::And Michael Sylvester Gardenzio Stallone eats a lot of fish, just like Jesus and the Apostle Peter did. :) [http://www.howcelebsgetfit.com/sylvester-stallone-fitness-training-exercise-and-diet-plan/] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:33, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::Why are you obsessed with Stallone today? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 20:40, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
Michael Sylvester Gardenzio Stallone certainly has his faults, but given that he incorporates aspects of the Mediterranean diet, he probably generally eats more like Jesus and the Apostle Peter does than the overweight atheist Penn Jillette who professes to respect science. :) I thought medical science, exercise science, and nutritional science were all part of science. :) And of course, the fit Stallone has more [[Essay: Does Richard Dawkins have machismo?|machismo]] than the overweight atheist Penn Jillette. :) See also: [[Sye Ten Bruggencate's debate challenge to atheist Penn Jillette]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]]
:Yes of course, because Italian cuisine - with its prosciutto, cotoletta, Tyrolische Speck, parma ham, cotechini, salami and wide range of meat dishes in a cream or cheese sauce is JUST LIKE the kosher diet of a 1st Century Judean. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 09:12, 19 September 2011 (EDT)
::Stallone was born in America. But I still can't see your point. Do you know that there are a lot of atheist in southern Europe who have a Mediterranean diet ?--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 22:10, 18 September 2011 (EDT)

Pat Tillman didn't lack machismo; neither did Bruce Lee. Lance Armstrong won seven Tour de France races. George Clooney is very popular with the ladies. All were/are atheists. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 22:02, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
:Bruce Lee '''definitely''' had machismo! Stallone became a catholic in 1996. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:04, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
::::[[Bruce Lee|Did he]]? By the way, "...it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment." - Hebrews 9:27 [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:07, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::What does that mean ?--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 22:12, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
:::: Stallone also took a lot of human growth hormone and was nearly charged for having it in Australia. Hardly a Biblical diet. [[User:Aortuso|Aortuso]] 22:05, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
As I indicated above, "Michael Sylvester Gardenzio Stallone certainly has his faults". With that being said, who does you think is in better health: Stallone or the overweight atheist Penn Jillette? Who do you think took better care of their health: Jesus or the overweight atheist Penn Jillette? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:23, 19 September 2011 (EDT)
:::Probably hard to tell when basing on mere looks. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 00:29, 19 September 2011 (EDT)
::Interesting fact: Penn Jillette is NOT the only atheist in the world. Why would you keep focusing on him ? Why don't you talk about other atheists like Bruce Lee Lance Armstrong or any of the multitude of fit atheists (like me for example) ?--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 00:28, 19 September 2011 (EDT)
Penn Jillette is not the only atheist in the world, but he makes up for it in weight. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:04, 19 September 2011 (EDT)
::Wow, that's a pretty good argument!--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 01:07, 19 September 2011 (EDT)

== You know, ==

the debate [[Talk:Atheism and obesity/Archive1#factual|here]] was never finished--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 21:56, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
:::I did respond. Have you contacted your representatives yet? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:59, 18 September 2011 (EDT)

== Minor typo ==

My apologies if I'm focusing too much on minor details, but I read this page after noticing it came up in Recent Changes, and I found a ''very'' minor grammatical error. In the Atheism and Health section, a comma is missing, as indicated here:

<blockquote>
In the journal article ''Religion, self-regulation, and self-control: Associations, explanations, and implications'' '''(comma should go here)''' psychologists McCullough and Willoughby theorize that many of the positive links of religiousness with health and social behavior may be caused by religion's beneficial influences on self-control/self-regulation
</blockquote>

As I said, it's a minor issue, but as a professional writer, it's the sort of thing I notice. Thank you very much! [[User:KevinDavis|Kevin Davis]] [[User talk:KevinDavis|Talk]] 23:05, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
:I just noticed that I myself had a minor typo in my above post, and I apologize. I meant "notice" instead of "noticed." Thank you! [[User:KevinDavis|Kevin Davis]] [[User talk:KevinDavis|Talk]] 23:06, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
:::Thanks. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:19, 19 September 2011 (EDT)
::::Thank you for correcting it! [[User:KevinDavis|Kevin Davis]] [[User talk:KevinDavis|Talk]] 23:07, 22 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::I am certainly a fool, and I'm still growing accustomed to Mediawiki's syntax. When I saw the difference link in my watchlist, I saw that the comment was outside the <nowiki>''</nowiki>, and I mistook those for quotes. Thus, my previous comment is irrelevant. Thanks! [[User:KevinDavis|Kevin Davis]] [[User talk:KevinDavis|Talk]] 23:07, 22 September 2011 (EDT)

== Reasonable debate offer ==

I wanted remove my offer from the cowardice talkpage because it is getting off-topic and people don't seem very genuine over there. Conservative has been talking a lot about how people (atheists I believe) won't debate him and are too scared to debate in general - I think that's what he is saying anyway, he can be a bit...confusing at times. I am not an atheist nor do I really know anything about science so having a debate about the existence of God or evolution is pointless. But I am willing to debate him on the topic of Atheism and Obesity. We can have a written debate right here on Conservapedia at an agreed upon time. If/When Conservative accepts this we can work out any further rules if required. If Conservative can let me know and if he declines I'd like a reason why that doesn't consist of a non-sequitar. Thanks, [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 18:00, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
:Hello? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 20:23, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
:::I still think you are an atheist and evolutionist and you know [[Talk:Cowardice|my policy about debating obscure atheist rather than non-obscure atheist.]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:59, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
::::I am '''not''' an atheist and your continued denial of my faith is extremely offensive. I have given you no reason to think I am so please desist in your remarks. My debate offer is very reasonable. Why will you not accept it? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 21:05, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::Max, I respect your good faith attempts to engage User:Conservative in debate, but it should be more than obvious to you, and everyone else, that User:Conservative does not intend to enter into a formal debate with anyone on any subject. As should be obvious from his articles and correspondences, User:Conservative does not appear interested in enlightening his audience or winning support for his worldview. No, quite clearly, his end goal is to ridicule and frustrate his ideological and philosophical enemies. He achieves this by continually bragging about his undefeated debating track record, yet never provides any proof or evidence his memory on this matter is accurate and correct. He issues challenges to those he knows will never accept his offer. Yet in turn sets up prerequisites that are impossible to satisfy for those who are willing to debate him. All previous offers to debate User:Conservative have met with one of the following responses:
:::::*Declined because the opponent is too "obscure" or not "prominent" enough.
:::::*Declined because the opponent would not meet his arcane list of demands.
:::::*Declined because his eventual victory is assured.
:::::*Ignored, then treated the requester to one of his world famous non-sequitur answers.(popular)
:::::*Ignored, no response given.
:::::*Ignored, offending offer deleted and burned.

:::::That's about it. That is all you can ever hope to get. Why? Because he's not interested in sharing, comparing, and contrasting ideas in a thoughtful manner. Nope, he just wants to ridicule and frustrate people. There's a word for that... rhymes with roll... mole? coal? Anyway, good luck. --[[User:SteveK|SteveK]] 01:04, 29 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::Pardon the puns, but I am only interested in debating the "big cheeses" within the atheist community and not the "small fries". :) I challenged the overweight atheist [[Penn Jillette]] to debate me, but he ran away which no doubt caused him to be out of breathe. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:46, 22 January 2012 (EST)
SteveK, I just found out that John J. Pasquini, Th.D., cited my Conservapedia [[atheism]] articles three times in his book'' Atheist Persona: Causes and Consequences'' (the book has 77 footnotes and cites Conservapedia atheism articles in footnotes 34, 64 and 67).[http://books.google.com/books?id=OMRhAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA24&lpg=PA24&dq=conservapedia+atheism&source=bl&ots=XoulnSQ90x&sig=_1xyC3wiZtD9ihYXVljTugA2tGk&hl=en&sa=X&ei=pL_3U72vB4r6oQTGg4HwCQ&ved=0CGsQ6AEwCTgK#v=onepage&q=conservapedia%20atheism&f=false] The book was favorably reviewed by [[Michael Behe]] (a leading proponent of [[intelligent design]] theory), [[Paul Vitz]] and [[Michael Egnor]] (also a proponent of intelligent design) and was published by the academic publisher University Press of America.[http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/atheist-persona-john-j-pasquini/1117916966?ean=9780761863328] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:19, 24 August 2014 (EDT)

==Bad Info==

The info on this page seems to be inaccurate, recent studies show that religious people are around 50% more likely to be obese than non believers, or at least non worshipers. Furthermore obesity occurrences in the United States seem to be centered around the Bible Belt and more Christian-Conservative States. Perhaps instead of criticizing other groups we should begin a campaign to educate fellow Christians and help people make healthier choices in their life. In my opinion, not taking care of your body is a sin, I think we should strive to make people healthier and perhaps start a campaign such as the successful [[Question Evolution Campaign]]. Source: http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700124603/Study-finds-link-between-religion-obesity.html Gelatin
::First of all, you misread your own source. Second, the shortcomings of the NorthWestern study have been discussed on this talk page. Third, as far as geographical area you are talking about, you haven't discussed other variables and last time I checked we still live in a multiple variable world. I suggest reading some books on statistics and improving your reading comprehension skills. Lastly, we really don't have any reliable reports of Moses, Elijah, Jesus or the Apostles Paul and Peter being overweight and I would be hard pressed to find more religious people than these very religious biblical figures. On the other hand, I certainly did show quite a few atheist leaders who have had weight challenges despite the fact that medical science, nutritional science and exercise science offers a host of solutions on a maintaining healthy weight. But just to make sure you are not a typical atheist denialist, has the [[New Atheism]] leadership had significant problems with being overweight? Has the [[American Atheists]] organization had significant problems with its leaders being overweight? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:36, 27 October 2011 (EDT)
:::Do you have any reports of Moses, Elijah etc NOT being overweight? As the only contemporary references we have to most of the prophets are in books the wrote themselves I don't think this is an argument I'd like to defend. --[[User:HarryPagett|HarryPagett]] 13:16, 21 December 2011 (EST)
[[File:70810564 64d3a67932.jpg|left|200px|thumb|Harry, Moses delivered to the Israel the Mosaic law. I believe that eating kosher is healthy. Ultra-orthodox Jews don't seem to have a problem with excess weight.]]
{{clear}}
I just find it interesting that we would concern ourselves with the incidence of obesity in atheists, as this seems rather non-sequitor. Why not look at things that are more related to faith and morality such as crime rates (http://current.com/community/92831935_atheists-supply-less-than-1-of-prison-populations-while-christians-make-up-75.htm) (http://www.pitzer.edu/academics/faculty/zuckerman/Zuckerman_on_Atheism.pdf) or sexual morality (http://spq.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/73/1/33) or racism and ethnocentrism (http://www.pitzer.edu/academics/faculty/zuckerman/Zuckerman_on_Atheism.pdf) even intelligence would be more telling than obesity (http://spq.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/73/1/33) [[User:CatholicBill]]

:As I understand it, the argument is that obesity is itself linked to most of these factors. For sexual morality, see [[Homosexuality and obesity]]. For intelligence, see the oft-made point that obese individuals may be ignoring scientific research into diet and exercise. For ethnocentricity, one might perhaps suggest that obese atheists are ignoring healthy ethnic foods such as brown rice and mung beans (should this be added to the article?). So you see, it's not that those issues are excluded, it's that effort is made to cover as many issues as possible, as amply as possible. The expansive obsesity writings enable anti-atheist fingers to be dipped into many pies.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 11:41, 21 December 2011 (EST)
::Is this a bad time to point out that dipping fingers in pies is likely to lead to obesity? :-) --[[User:HarryPagett|HarryPagett]] 13:20, 21 December 2011 (EST)
::::::User: CatholicBill, the article is about atheism and obesity - not crime statistics. It is certainly no crime to overeat or be overweight. Please stick to the topic of the article. Be that as it may: [http://creation.com/atheism#incarceration HERE is some crime statistics in relation to no-religion people you are failing to bring up.] As far as your other "arguments", you are failing to recognize that we live in a multi-variable world. For example, if affluence is related to atheism because people get "fat and sassy" (rebellious) towards God when their wallet is fuller then that would certainly affect IQ levels since their is a correlation between wealth and IQ. By the way, if atheists are so smart, then why did the Soviet Union fall? :) Lastly, the atheist community could take much of the wind out of the sails of this article simply by losing weight which is easy to do if you comply with what nutritional science, exercise science and medical science say to do. Atheists purport to love science so this should be quite easy to do if their purported love of science is genuine. So instead of kvetching about this article, I suggest that the atheist community get more serious about applying the health sciences within their community. If you are an atheist, next time you feel tempted to eat a Whopper ask yourself "What would Jesus eat?" According to the [[Mayo Clinic]] the Mediterranean diet/lifestyle (which is what Jesus ate/did) is quite healthy and compatible with weight loss.[http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/mediterranean-diet/CL00011] For example, Jesus no doubt ate figs and figs are a "sweet way to lose weight" or maintain a healthy weight.[http://www.whfoods.com/genpage.php?tname=foodspice&dbid=24#healthbenefits] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:18, 22 January 2012 (EST)

==Ad Hominem Abusive==

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)
:::::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)
::::::I hadn't noticed the others, thanks for the heads up. Shall I remove this section? It seems unnecessary. --[[User:Swinefish|Swinefish]] 23:07, 3 November 2011 (EDT)
:::::::You can leave it. You redefining a fallacy and it being pointed out was useful. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:31, 4 November 2011 (EDT)

== Other countries plus America's culture which is historically more car centered ==

:Rather contrary to the rather limited 'studies' that this article bases its claims off, I think it'd be most logical to conclude that atheism is inversely proportional to obesity, when you consider the USA has one of the highest (if not the highest) obesity rates in the Western world, and also happens to be the most religious.
Where do most Christians reside in the world? The East or the West? Are people in the East thinner? Do you have any large studies comparable to the Gallup study in size which isolate the religious variable in relation to health habits and/or obesity? More importantly, do you have any large studies comparable to the Gallup study in size which isolates the variable of religiousness in relation to health habits and/or obesity and measures the "Very religious". The reason I ask these questions is that we know the major variables of income, education and race affect how people eat/exercise.

In addition, we know that America is the birth place of large scale automobile manufacturing ([[Henry Ford]] and Ford Motor Company) plus has had federal/state public policy pushing the interstate highways and suburbia (Also, America had white flight out of the cities and into the suburbs).[http://www.skidmore.edu/academics/roads/TRANSCRIPT.html] So it comes as no big surprise that America has a very automobile centered culture and has less of a bicycle/walking culture than many Western nations (bike lanes and bike paths, etc). Of course, this has a significant negative impact on the amount of exercise in America and adds to obesity.[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19164816][http://policy.rutgers.edu/faculty/pucher/jpah08.pdf]

Next, to make sure you are not an atheist denialist, did a significant number of the New Atheism founders (and [[PZ Myers]]} have a significant problem with being overweight? See: [[New Atheism leadership's problem with excess weight]] Similarly, does/did a significant number of the board of directors of the [[American Atheists]] organization have a problem with being overweight? See: [[Atheism and obesity]] Also, does [[Penn Jillette]] have a problem with being overweight?

In short, your analysis was far too simplistic and suffered as a result. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:53, 31 March 2012 (EDT)
:::By the way, thanks for reminding me about this article. I just added [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/8106603.stm another picture citation] to the [[Atheism and obesity]] article. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:29, 1 April 2012 (EDT)
::::Addendum: I added a few pictures that further illustrate the issue of atheism and obesity and/or the problems associated with atheist obesity. For example, atheist [[PZ Myers]]' difficulty ascending and descending the dinosaur model at the [[Creation Museum]] due to the fact that he was overweight and out of shape.[http://conservapedia.com/Atheism_and_obesity#PZ_Myers.27_visit_to_the_Creation_Museum] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:06, 1 April 2012 (EDT)

== Form follows function ==

Or in this case - the form reflects the content: it is just messy:
*there are two sections above the TOC
*the references/notes are a mess: generally each should show which source is quoted. That's helpful for the reader when he ponders whether the link is worth following...
*having a separate section for each atheist is messy and clutters the TOC - especially as those section sometimes only state the name.
*it is a pain to read: e.g, the phrase ''in addition'' pops up a dozen times...

The whole subject is ridiculous, but User:Conservative, when you are spending so much time micro-managing it, couldn't you try to improve its outfit and readability? Thanks, [[User:AugustO|AugustO]]

:For those in a hurry, I have condensed some of the essential info about individuals into a [[Gallery of obese atheists|gallery page]]. They do say that a picture is worth a thousand words. Could a link from this page be added?--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:08, 20 June 2012 (EDT)

== Comment for User:Conservative ==

I must commend you for all your work tying fat people to atheism/homosexuality/etc., etc. Too bad you don't spend your time trying to help both sectors (obese people and atheists) by showing compassion and God's love rather than disdain and mockery.

True witnessing for God doesn't consist of putting people down because you dislike them for either their appearance (obese people - you obviously have an issue with them) or their beliefs (atheists).

How many people do you truly think you've brought to God with your writings? As an obese Christian, I know you've offended me with your attempts to link obesity with everything you hate, and I doubt that disbelievers would feel any less offended. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 11:11, 29 June 2012 (EDT)

Edited to add: Quite frankly, your writings make me feel toward you the same way as I have ever felt toward the bullies I've encountered in my real life. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 11:36, 29 June 2012 (EDT)
=== Response of User: Conservative ===
Sharon, above are discussions about atheism and obesity.

As far as [[Homosexuality and obesity]] among other things I cited this:

"The journalist [[Peter LaBarbera]] wrote:

The National Youth Risk Behavior Surveys are given to high schoolers, and the Centers for Disease Control looked at the data from 2001 to 2009 in the states of Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Vermont, Wisconsin and the cities of Boston, Chicago, Milwaukee, New York City, San Francisco and San Diego, locales where the schools permitted questions about homosexual identity/behavior, which isn’t always the case in less “progressive” areas.

Teens who called themselves “gay, lesbian or bisexual,” or who were unsure, as well as those who didn’t use those labels but had sexual contact only with same-sex people or with both sexes, were found to be more likely than heterosexually identified students to engage in seven out of the 10 risk behavior categories. These were: 1) behaviors that contribute to violence; 2) behaviors related to attempted suicide; 3) tobacco use; 4) alcohol use; 5) other drug use; 6) sexual behaviors; and 7) weight management. (emphasis added)"[http://americansfortruth.com/2011/06/24/wrong-diagnosis-wrong-cure-harvey-assails-cdcs-pro-gay-youth-spin/#more-9505]

You may disagree with me, but I think the [[Centers for Disease Control]] is a valid source to use in this instance. I am not saying the CDC is perfect, but nevertheless I don't have a problem with citing them in this instance. I also have no problem citing a conservative journalist who formerly worked for a leading newspaper and a conservative organization.

Also, today I added some health/fitness information on weight loss plus some additional information from responsible sources. I don't see why an encyclopedia should refrain from offering useful/valid information. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:42, 29 June 2012 (EDT)

::I disagree with the tone of your writings, yes. Please explain to me how [http://conservapedia.com/Gallery_of_obese_atheists this] helps anyone? Does it draw people closer to God's word? Does it show God's love? Or does it show pettiness instead? It's certainly not funny, or educational, or loving in any way. But then again, I guess you don't claim to be witnessing, do you? What exactly is the purpose behind the linking of obesity to everything you hate? Are you even ''trying'' to convert anyone? --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 14:07, 29 June 2012 (EDT)
::::I don't see us agreeing on the topics of obesity and atheism/homosexuality anytime soon. But I know I did cite relevant sources such as the [[Centers for Disease Control]]/Peter LaBarbera (see above) and [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=17463369&ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum this Pubmed material]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 14:48, 29 June 2012 (EDT)

:::::No, I doubt that I'll ever think bullying behavior toward obese people is the correct way to act. And I notice you totally fail to answer my questions - why? You accuse people of being cowards when they fail to answer your questions. Maybe you ought to take a good, long look in the mirror. Don't flatter yourself that you win when you avoid answering. I've challenged you before about having a debate over the treatment Conservapedia deals out toward fat people. Care to take me up on it? --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 15:09, 29 June 2012 (EDT)

== Other commentary ==

You won't see Jesus, Moses, Apostle Paul or the Apostle Peter in your list. They pretty much ate a Mosaic diet or Mediterranean diet employing reasonable portions and had sufficient exercise.
::Conveniently, there doesn't exist any portraits of these people that were done from life, so you're making an assumption here. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 15:29, 29 June 2012 (EDT)

Here are some interesting articles on weight loss and maintaining a healthy weight:

*[http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/mediterranean-diet/CL00011 Mediterranean diet] by [[Mayo Clinic]]
*[http://www.motleyhealth.com/fitness/how-much-exercise-is-needed-to-get-fit-and-lose-weight How much exercise is needed to get fit and lose weight]
*[http://www.bbc.co.uk/health/treatments/healthy_living/fitness/daily_howmuch.shtml Exercise: How much? - BBC News]
*[http://www.acsm.org/about-acsm/media-room/news-releases/2011/08/01/acsm-issues-new-recommendations-on-quantity-and-quality-of-exercise American College of Sports Medicine]

My thoughts on this matter agree with this material: [[Chuck Norris on the topic of obesity]]

I have met people from various parts of the world and there is far less obesity in the [[Eastern World]] than in many parts of the [[Western World]] and I think the reason is that they eat better, get more exercise and are often more disciplined. Also, Asian Americans generally lead more healthy lives too than many westerners. I have a feeling that Amy Chua doesn't allow her kid(s) to eat a lot of snacks and watch a lot of television. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:31, 29 June 2012 (EDT)
:Non sequitur. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 16:00, 29 June 2012 (EDT)

:''You won't see Jesus, Moses, Apostle Paul or the Apostle Peter in your list.'' No, the list doesn't imply that all Christians are obese! Do you think that there are only fat atheists?
:It seems that your belief is just one amongst a lot more influential factors when it comes to personal appearance.
:[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 03:27, 30 June 2012 (EDT)
::AugustO, the Mosaic diet does not lead to obesity. See the [https://www.google.com/search?q=ultra-orthodox+jews&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=91idU-PwH8OzyASG1IGgBw&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAQ&biw=1024&bih=504 Google image search for ultra-orthodox Jews] Slim! Jesus, Moses, Elijah, Peter, and Paul were slim! I rest my case! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 04:29, 15 June 2014 (EDT)

== Richard Dawkins ==

Im surprised Richard Dawkins wasn;t there. Then again, it makes sense. The entire essay revolves around a fictional premise that atheists are obese in comparison to Christians.[[User:Brenden|brenden]] 16:04, 29 June 2012 (EDT)
:Isn't Richard Dawkins an agnostic? It is rather humorous that a founder of the [[New Atheism]] movement was an agnostic. :) Also, didn't 3/5 of the New Atheism movmement's founders have excess weight? See: [[New Atheism leadership's problem with excess weight]]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:19, 29 June 2012 (EDT)

== Seriously? ==

User:Conservative - you have once again deleted a comment of mine. It was not offensive, nor was it trolling. I request that you please restore it. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 16:22, 29 June 2012 (EDT)
::The brief discussion was pointless and was only going to lead to bickering. I have decided to move on. I will say for the record that I didn't initially create [[Essay: Gallery of obese atheists|the gallery]] nor did I add any pictures of new people. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:28, 29 June 2012 (EDT)
:::Do try to remember that you had to delete and oversight our "brief discussion" the next time you want to call someone a coward. And yes, while you didn't initially create ''this'' gallery, you are the only one on this site obsessed with creating all of the "Conservapedia hates fat people" articles - you know the ones where you say fat people are atheists, lesbians, homosexuals, blah, blah, blah. You pretend you're being helpful by providing the links to diets, etc., but the disdainful language surrounding the links trumps them. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 16:55, 29 June 2012 (EDT)
:::::For the record, I have never said that all overweight people are atheists or lesbians/homosexuals nor have I said that CP hates overweight people.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:01, 29 June 2012 (EDT)
::::::But you do not deny deleting and oversighting a discussion you had with SharonW. As she says, please remember that next time you throw out an accusation of cowardice or unwillingness to debate. I know that all those you make the accusation against certainly will. [[User:Davidspencer|Davidspencer]] 17:07, 29 June 2012 (EDT)
:::::::David, if you want to accuse me of cowardice despite my offers to debate prominent atheists/evolutionists, I am not particularly concerned. If you are a fan of the agnostic/evolutionist [[Richard Dawkins]] or [[Penn Jillette]] or fan of any other prominent evolutionists or atheists, I would encourage you to ask them to engage in written debate with me. For example, feel free to contact Dawkins about this open debate offer: [[Essay: Debate challenge for Richard Dawkins]]. My material has been read by a lot of people and given the current decline of [[global atheism]] and global agnosticism which is expected to accelerate and the decline of American evolutionism in the last 17 months [http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/06/american-young-earth-creationism.html], they clearly need to do something if the care about their religions. But if they want to fiddle while [[Essay: Penn Jillette, don't just stand there! Do something!|global atheism/agnosticism/evolutionism burns]] that is fine with me. My fellow Bible believing Christians and I have no problem roasting hot dogs and marshmellows (in moderation of course) on the bonfire of global atheism/agnosticism/evolutionism burning. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:02, 29 June 2012 (EDT)
Addendum: As far as oversighting a few sentences of material because I didn't want to be dragged into the ridiculous debate of whether Jesus was overweight, I have no regrets. Being charged with cowardice about the matter was rather humorous though. In retrospect, it was definitely one of the most humorous things to occur on CP. Jesus was a carpenter before the days of power tools and then he became a traveling preacher/prophet who did a lot of walking. Plus, he lived in the Middle East about 2,000 years ago and ate a healthy Mosaic diet. I very much doubt anyone is going to give someone an extended debate about this matter. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:07, 30 June 2012 (EDT)
::::::::Way to go once again with a strawman. You know nothing about me but because I point out that you removed a comment to prevent debate, whilst accusing others of cowardice of when they do not reply to your invitations on this site to debate, you feel free to make unfounded and unsupported assertions about me. But we all know that is your modus operandi and my pointing it out will not change anything will it? Incidentally, can you point me to a shop where I can but marshmellows, I rather fancy trying some roasted. [[User:Davidspencer|Davidspencer]] 02:09, 30 June 2012 (EDT)
::::::::::Silly! You get them in the Mellow Marshes. Obviously. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 02:52, 30 June 2012 (EDT)
:I don't want to indulge [[User:Conservative]] any more than I absolutely have to, but making a claim about an individual's diet 2000 years ago based on (what appear to be) cultural norms is fallacious and entirely speculative. For one, my guess would be that polytheists, in general, would also have a similar diet. By your argument, Christians are obese because Christian Americans eat fatty food (see the gallery above). [[User:GregG|GregG]] 00:12, 30 June 2012 (EDT)
:I forgot to add that it's really not fair to compare average weights of people in societies over 2000 years old (when starvation and food production are major issues) and today (where we have significantly increased our food production capacity; very few first-world people are starving to death). [[User:GregG|GregG]] 00:14, 30 June 2012 (EDT)
Greg, I have some modern pictures of ultra-orthodox Jews to offer as evidence that the Mosaic diet does not lead to obesity. See the [https://www.google.com/search?q=ultra-orthodox+jews&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=91idU-PwH8OzyASG1IGgBw&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAQ&biw=1024&bih=504 Google image search for ultra-orthodox Jews] Slim! Jesus, Moses, Elijah, Peter, and Paul were slim! I rest my case! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 04:49, 15 June 2014 (EDT)
::GregG, why don't you ask [[William Lane Craig]] to debate someone on this topic. If he thinks it is a serious topic, I am sure he will hold a debate on this matter. I hope you will forgive me for saying this, but I have my doubts Craig is going to hold a debate about this topic. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:34, 30 June 2012 (EDT)

Good grief, Conservative - you were blathering on about nobody wanting to buy a picture of a fat Jesus, and I pointed out that people buy pictures of Jesus portrayed as blond, blue-eyed Caucasian all the time, and that I doubted that Jesus actually looked like that. Those were the comments you over-sighted. There was no argument about whether or not Jesus was fat - I just pointed out that ''you can't possibly know for certain''. I have offered to debate you about your treatment of obese people, and you have refused. You are the one who accuses people of cowardice over not debating. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 01:00, 30 June 2012 (EDT)
::A general message to all re: the [[Atheism and obesity]] article:

::I have not had a campaign against overweight people in general.

::I merely pointed out the obesity in the atheist, homosexual and lesbian populations in the Western World. I also pointed out that atheists pretend to love science and science gives us abundance information on how to lose weight and the negative effects of being overweight. Workout an hour or more a day (strength training and aerobic exercise) and eat a sensible diet (reasonable amount of fruits and vegetables or Mediterranean diet or Zone diet, low glycemic foods, etc.) and the vast majority of people will lose the weight and keep it off with a reasonable amount of maintenance exercise. I provided all the information on how to lose weight and keep it off via a healthy lifestyle.

::I also pointed out that in 2005, there were 4 times as many Eastern World Christians as Western World Christians (and that Eastern World people have healthier lifestyles in general) and there is a significant amount of data indicating that the very religious in America live healthier lifestyles than others in America. Plus, I gave sound research indicating that religion in the West tends to increase self-discipline (all other things remaining equal of course).

::In addition, I pointed out that there seems to be a higher incidence of obesity within the homosexual population and provided sound evidence. Most homosexuals are liberals and liberals purport to love science so I don't see why this is not fair to point out.

::I also pointed out that people cannot reasonably claim that Jesus, Moses, Peter and the Apostle Paul were overweight. For example, there are several Bible passages against gluttony and sloth. The Bible is definitely not friendly to gluttony and sloth. Given that many Western atheists presently scoff at how superior their ideology is over a biblical worldview this is certainly fair to point out.

::I realize that the Western World has become prosperous and history teaches us that prosperity in a culture can lead to complacency and those cultures declining/falling. As a result, advocating self-discipline is not going to be a popular idea among many at the present time. Recently, [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bqeeFhnlHvk a book came out] essentially saying that overweight people in general need to be more self-disciplined, personally responsible and more mentally tough and if memory serves he ignited caller complaints after his public appearances (By the way, the author is an ex overweight guy and it appears he is a libertarian atheist or at least anti-Bible).

::Lastly, as far as the [[Overweight atheists comedy and satire]], atheists (and liberals) sure seem willing to dish out satire, but I have noticed that they can dish it out, but they can't take it. Could atheist pride be the issue? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:11, 30 June 2012 (EDT)

:::I was wondering [[User:Conservative|Conservative]]. You quite rightly, in my opinion, have a dislike of obese people - especially atheists. Are you willing to reveal the weight of the collective known as [[User:Conservative|Conservative]]? Personally I am 5 foot 10 inches and weigh (currently) 14 stone. What do you (and/or your respective contributors) weigh. If you are unwilling to reveal the number of members of your collective (a somewhat socialist concept I must say) then an average weight will do if you are willing to provide it. [[User:Davidspencer|Davidspencer]] 10:42, 30 June 2012 (EDT)
[[File:Sun Tzu portrait.jpg|thumbnail|right|200px|"Subtle! Subtle! They become formless. Mysterious! Mysterious! They become soundless. Therefore, they are the masters of the enemy's fate." - [[Sun Tzu]] ]]
::::David, do you understand the difference between fact and opinion? You certainly have provided no proof and evidence that I/we dislike obese people - none! :) Secondly, within reason people rightly like others who stick to their guns on matters and prior to User:Conservative's material on obesity and the atheism/homosexuality, User: Conservative did say that no identifying information would be give on us/me. :) Of course, it goes without saying that this policy will continue. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:08, 30 June 2012 (EDT)

:::::Maybe not "dislike", as "determined to constantly and consistently portray in as negative a manner as possible" with as many links to things you ''do'' dislike. I personally don't see much difference. [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 09:47, 2 July 2012 (EDT)

===Biblical position===
Is the Bible really so strongly against overeating, as [[user:Conservative]] says?

Jesus only discusses the topic once, in Matthew Chapter 11 (and also as recounted in Luke), where he addresses accusations, presumably made by those killjoy Pharisees, that ''he himself'' was a glutton. He doesn't seem remotely troubled by the accusations, does not bother to deny or refute them, and seems to say that it doesn't really matter whether one chooses to be abstemious (like John the Baptist) or indulgent (like the Son of Man).

So I don't think [[user:Conservative]]'s claim that "[t]he Bible is definitely not friendly to gluttony" really gives the whole story. And I would rather agree with Jesus than with the Pharisees, who presumably also thought there was a biblical basis for their own misguided finger-wagging.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 05:02, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
:::CPalmer, as you are probably aware, the Apostle Paul declared: "All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;" (2 Timothy 3:16). Accordingly, when it comes to the issues of gluttony and sloth, these portions of the Bible also need to be taken into account: Old Testament (such as Proverbs), the words of the Apostle Paul and the Apostle Peter and any other Bible verses on this matter. Christians should not inadvertently or intentionally employ the [[fallacy of exclusion]] when informing themselves on these issues. Here are some verses in the Bible on gluttony: [http://www.openbible.info/topics/gluttony Biblical teaching on gluttony]. Biblical teaching on laziness/sloth: http://codybateman.wordpress.com/2006/09/10/laziness-introduction-and-bible-study-guide/

:::In addition, it would be unwise for Christians to ignore what medical science and other disciplines of science indicate on these matters. (see: [[Physical and mental health related problems associated with obesity]]). Besides the obvious benefit of feeling better and having more energy and thus getting more done through avoiding the besetting sins of gluttony and sloth (Paul did command Christians to be good stewards and to make the most of their time), preventative medicine is often better than treating illness after the fact.

:::I realize that working out and eating right are not always fun and require self-discipline. But like most things in life, in most cases, it merely requires replacing bad habits with good habits. The reason why many diets fail is that people never establish a healthy lifestyle via establishing good habits. In addition, people can do things to make exercise more fun or productive (music, audio books, etc.).
[[File:Hong Kong Christians at Gateway Camp.jpg|thumbnail|right|250px|[[Hong Kong]] Christians at Gateway Camp. In 2005, there were four times as many non-Western World Christians as there were [[Western World]] Christians.[http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=30077]
 
(photo obtained from [http://www.flickr.com/photos/mckln/4815046728/in/set-72157624550425162 Flickr], see [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/2.0/deed.en license agreement])]]

:::Next, I do think that Christians need to be informed about church history plus not have a myopic view of the world. In many cases, it could be argued that at the present time the Western World church is behaving like the undisciplined Church at Corinth which the Apostle Paul had to correct.[http://www.churchleaders.com/?news=139580/] Let's not forget, there are plenty of Christians in the world who are living healthy lifestyles and avoiding the sins of gluttony and sloth. See: [[Global Christianity]]

:::Lastly, there are certainly self-disciplined Christians in the West and no doubt some of them were a part of the Gallup survey and other social science data (see: [[Atheism and obesity]]). For example, in the journal article ''Religion, self-regulation, and self-control: Associations, explanations, and implications'', psychologists McCullough and Willoughby theorize that many of the positive links of religiousness with health and social behavior may be caused by religion's beneficial influences on [[self-control]]/self-regulation.[http://www.psy.miami.edu/faculty/mmccullough/Papers/Relig_self_control_bulletin.pdf][http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19210054] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:20, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
::::I see you are siding with the Pharisees, then.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 12:03, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
::::Here are the questions that I think you need to consider. They are in two groups, one focusing on Jesus' position, and one on that of the Pharisees:
::::'''JESUS:''' Do you agree that Jesus seems to say that gluttony isn't really a big deal in Matthew 11? You seem to think that it is a big deal - are you therefore saying that Jesus was wrong? Or is it more important now than it was - if Jesus was on earth nowadays and was accused of being a glutton, do you think he would deny the accusation more vigorously? Or would Jesus, if on earth today, follow a strict diet so that the accusation would not be made? Why did he not do so in the first century?

::::'''PHARISEES:''' One way the Pharisees attacked Jesus was by calling him a glutton. Do you think they were right or justified to do so? How do your accusations of gluttony, used to attack atheists and homosexuals, differ from the Pharisees' attacks on Jesus, if at all? What do you think was the Pharisees' basis for being against gluttony? Would it have been scriptural? Would it have been justified? How would it have differed, if at all, from your own scriptural basis? Is it possible that you have followed the same process as the Pharisees in arriving at your own views about gluttony?--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 08:16, 3 July 2012 (EDT)
CPalmer, the Mosaic diet does not lead to obesity. See the [https://www.google.com/search?q=ultra-orthodox+jews&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=91idU-PwH8OzyASG1IGgBw&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAQ&biw=1024&bih=504 Google image search for ultra-orthodox Jews] Slim! Jesus, Moses, Elijah, Peter, and Paul were slim! I rest my case! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 04:29, 15 June 2014 (EDT)

==Article Structure==
This article seems a bit overly complex in its structure. When there are 54 sections in the contents bar, it seems to me that some of these could be merged or deleted without changing the overall flow of the article too much. I don't intend to make any particular changes, because certain admins seem to have a lot of effort invested in this article, and I'd rather not irritate people higher up the food chain than me, but that's my opinion at this point.--[[User:DTSavage|DTSavage]] 14:42, 24 September 2012 (EDT)
:Addendum: If the particular example subsections could be organized in some way (possibly alphabetical by last name), I feel that that might help with the readability of the article to some extent.--[[User:DTSavage|DTSavage]] 14:47, 24 September 2012 (EDT)
[[File:Hand and cookies.jpg|thumbnail|right|200px|Obesity is positively associated with [[neuroticism]], impulsiveness, and lower [[self-control|self-discipline]].
 
 
(photo obtained from [http://www.flickr.com/photos/waytoocrowded/1899823572/ Flickr], see [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/deed.en license agreement])]]
:::When deciding the order of the pictures, I LARGELY used a combination of chronological order, the prominence of the atheist and their atheism and obesity "weight class". Should some of these atheists follow the recommendations of [[medical science]], [[nutritional science]] and [[exercise science]], I may move them lower down the in article.

:::There are a number of topics within and related to the atheism and obesity such as irreligion and irrationality (see: [[Irreligion and superstition]]). Some of the causes of obesity are neuroticism, impulsiveness, anger and lower self-discipline issues (see: [[Atheism and obesity]]). Of course, these causes of obesity are also related to irrationality and God-hating. See also: [[Causes of atheism]]). [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:03, 24 September 2012 (EDT)
== Unlock this page please ==
I have material to add--[[User:JerryCa|JerryCa]] 01:20, 6 April 2014 (EDT)
:Please clarify. And if it is a study, have the study have a large data set, be well-designed and control for important variables such as socioeconomic factors.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 08:56, 6 April 2014 (EDT)
::Do I have to justify my postings to you? Surely the very concept of a wiki is to combine resources. I wanted to add some obese atheists but if you do not want help forget it.--[[User:JerryCa|JerryCa]] 17:08, 6 April 2014 (EDT)
:::JerryCa, I am not worried about a shortage of prominent, obese atheists featured in the article. The article features a robust collection of prominent, obese atheists. But feel free to make suggestions on the talk page of the article in the latter part of 5/2019 when your block expires.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 04:55, 15 June 2014 (EDT)

== Mention the Book of Daniel, the scientific experiment in Daniel with a control group and the Daniel diet plan ==

Mention the Book of Daniel, the scientific experiment in Daniel with a control group and the Daniel diet plan mentioned [http://users.adam.com.au/bstett/BObesity155.html HERE]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 03:14, 9 October 2014 (EDT)

== Kim Jong-un ==
You can add this: "[http://english.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2014/05/08/2014050801606.html N.Korean Leader Getting Fatter]." Tha man's immoral behavior may be causing him to find solace in exessive eating. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] 04:15, 10 October 2014 (EDT)
:Upon your request, I added it. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 04:26, 10 October 2014 (EDT)

==Erasmus Darwin==
Corpulent Grandad Erasmus died when Charles Darwin was a little boy. Please explain how he was an evolutionist. It's like saying my grandfather (who died when I was a little boy) worked with wood and was interested in classical music. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 01:52, 26 October 2014 (EDT)
==Medical opinion==
Conservative, with the acception of Dr. Stephen Joseph, who does not really support your claims, can you point to a medical professional who agrees with your assessment? Also can you show me a a respectable source that shows that the USA is not the the most obese nation in the world? I don't want you to question my religious affiliation or point me to one of your other articles I just want to see an unbiased opinion that agrees with you. Can you do that?--[[User:Tomqua|Tomqua]] 10:13, 19 March 2015 (EDT)

=== Making sure you are not a proud atheist who engages in the fallacy of exclusion ===

Just to make sure you are not an [[Atheism and arrogance|arrogant atheist]] who engages in the [[fallacy of exclusion]], I have some questions for you before I am willing to continue:

1. Does the atheist community in the [[Western World]] have a problem with obesity and do they have a greater problem with obesity than religious Africa? See also: [[Secular Europe and obesity]]

2. Are there a number of prominent atheists with excess weight issues? Does medical science have effective methods to lose weight? Do nutritionists and exercise scientists have effective methods of losing weight such as cutting out processed foods, eating a low calorie and low fat diet combined with vigorous exercise? If so, why are so many of the overweight atheists featured in this article still overweight? Do they love pie and other fattening foods and also love being a coach potato more than they love science?

3. Based on the historical data, which historically had a greater problem with obesity: Jesus and his disciples or the leadership of the New Atheist movement? See: [[New Atheism leadership's problem with excess weight]] and [[Jesus Christ, the apostles and the Mediterranean diet/Mosaic diet]]. Also, please see these [https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Orthodox+Jews%22&rlz=1C2AVNA_enUS588US588&biw=1024&bih=667&tbm=isch&source=lnms&sa=X&ei=4xhQVPD0KsyfyATQxoCwBA&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAQ tons of pictures] of Orthodox Jews which I presume eat a Mosaic diet. Notice how slim they are!

4. Is the atheist PZ Myers overweight in [https://gaylejordan.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/dsc02944.jpg THIS PICTURE] - especially in his abdominal area?

5. With increasing prosperity, does atheistic China have an ever growing obesity problem? See: [[China and obesity]]. A recent study published in the ''Obesity Reviews'' journal, found that Chinese teenagers' rate of [[diabetes]] was four times that of their [[United States|American]] peers.[http://www.china.org.cn/china/2012-09/14/content_26521029.htm] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:16, 19 March 2015 (EDT)
:::Questions for you:

1: Do young people visit Conservapedia?

2: Do many young people have problem with weight whilst going through or recently gone through puberty?

3:Do many of these people have crisis of religion during these times?

4:Are many of these people impressionable enough to believe what you say?

The answer to all the above is yes. So many of them will look at this article and believe it to be the answer, it is not. These people need medical advice about their weight and reading your article they will not get it. Therefore you are being downright irresponsible preaching it.--[[User:Tomqua|Tomqua]] 15:31, 19 March 2015 (EDT)

Talk:Atheism and obesity

2015-03-19T14:13:30Z

Tomqua:

Talk:Ex-agnostics

2015-03-12T18:58:35Z

Tomqua: Created page with "Are deceased people allowed?--~~~~"

Are deceased people allowed?--[[User:Tomqua|Tomqua]] 14:58, 12 March 2015 (EDT)

Ex-agnostics

2015-03-12T18:57:53Z

Tomqua:

Here is a list of [[Ex-atheists]] and Ex-agnostics:

==Ex-Atheists==

*[[Richard Dawkins]] (See: [[Richard Dawkins and agnosticism]])
*Sita Ram Goel, Hindu
*Tamsin Greig, Christian
*Keir Hardie, Protestant Christian
*[[Peter Hitchens]], Christian and former Communist
*[[C.S. Lewis]], Christian
*Martin Lings, Muslim
*Gabriel Marcel, Catholic Christian
*[[Dmitry Medvedev]], Russian Orthodox Christian
*[[Nursultan Nazarbayev]], Muslim
*[[Anne Rice]], beliefes in Jesus Christ and God, but does no longer considers herself a Christian
*[[Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn]], Russian Orthodox Christian
*[[Lee Strobel]], Christian
*[[Paul Vitz]], Christian
*[[Enoch Powell]], politician, Christian

==Ex-Agnostics==
*Christian B. Anfinsen, Orthodox Jew
*Silma Ihram, Muslim
*[[Evelyn Waugh]], Christian
==See also==
*[[Resources for leaving atheism and becoming a Christian]]
*[[Ex-atheist testimonies of Christians]]

[[Category:Religion]]

Ex-agnostics

2015-03-12T18:55:53Z

Tomqua: /* Ex-Atheists */

Here is a list of [[Ex-atheists]] and Ex-agnostics:

==Ex-Atheists==

*[[Richard Dawkins]] (See: [[Richard Dawkins and agnosticism]])
*Sita Ram Goel, Hindu
*Tamsin Greig, Christian
*Keir Hardie, Protestant Christian
*[[Peter Hitchens]], Christian and former Communist
*[[C.S. Lewis]], Christian
*Martin Lings, Muslim
*Gabriel Marcel, Catholic Christian
*[[Dmitry Medvedev]], Russian Orthodox Christian
*[[Nursultan Nazarbayev]], Muslim
*[[Anne Rice]], beliefes in Jesus Christ and God, but does no longer considers herself a Christian
*[[Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn]], Russian Orthodox Christian
*[[Lee Strobel]], Christian
*[[Paul Vitz]], Christian
*[[Enoch Powell]], politician, Christian

==Ex-Agnostics==
*Christian B. Anfinsen, Orthodox Jew
*Silma Ihram, Muslim

==See also==
*[[Resources for leaving atheism and becoming a Christian]]
*[[Ex-atheist testimonies of Christians]]

[[Category:Religion]]

Essay:Greatest Conservative Sports Stars

2015-03-12T18:52:18Z

Tomqua: removed Peacock, an average player at best.

Most sports stars are probably [[conservative]]. Athletes at all levels of competition frequently praise [[God]] for giving them the strength to succeed at their sports. Here are some of the greatest:

{| class="wikitable sortable"
|-
!Athlete
!Sport
![[Conservatism]]
|-
|[[Chuck Norris]]
|karate
|Six-time undefeated World Professional Karate Champion, middleweight division, and the first westerner ever to achieve an eighth degree black belt in Tae Kwon Do; now a leading conservative commentator.
|-
|[[Jim Jordan]]
|wrestling
|two-time NCAA Division I wrestling champion, which included defeating a future Olympic gold medalist, and four-time state champion; leading [[conservative]] in [[Congress]] who chaired the Republican Study Committee for the 112th Congress.
|-
|Matt Birk
|football
|outspokenly pro-life and critical of same-sex marriage, Matt Birk has been repeatedly selected to the Pro Bowl, was the starting center for the Super Bowl champion Baltimore Ravens in 2013, and is ranked as one of the most intelligent professional athletes
|-
|Nolan Ryan
|baseball
|went from being one of the greatest pitchers of all time (7 no-hitters) to endorsing Texan Lieutenant Governor David Dewhurst as "a proven conservative"
|-
|[[Jon Runyan]]
|football
|one of the best linemen in the NFL who was selected for the Pro Bowl, Runyan was a two-term Republican Congressman (NJ) from 2011 to 2015
|-
|Novak Djokovic
|tennis
|Current number 1 player in the world, Novak gives glory to God with the sign of the [[Crucifixion|Cross]] after big tennis victories. While he was winning the intense finals of the Australian Open in 2012, he did the sign of the cross after key points and even kissed a wooden cross, which the [[liberal media]] falsely described as "kissing his necklace."<ref>http://trueblueconservative.com/2012/01/djokovic-pulls-a-tebow-southern-prose/</ref>
|-
|[[Tim Tebow]]
|football<ref>The first college sophomore to win the [[Heisman Trophy]], and the only quarterback to lead his team to two [[BCS]] college championships.</ref>
|[[pro-life]], outspoken Christian; an analyst for the [[lamestream media]] said about him, "You need to disappear, okay, [[Tim Tebow]]?"<ref>Tedy Bruschi continued to say about Tebow, "You're not the starting quarterback, it's Mark Sanchez's team. I want my voice to come from my head coach and my quarterback -- my starting quarterback. That message has to be consistent. I don't want all this competition brewing, and every time you speak and anytime you talk about competition or anything like that, you're twisting things," he went on. "I want one voice. One quarterback, not two." [http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d829b6a76/article/tedy-bruschi-thinks-tim-tebow-should-pipe-down Tedy Bruschi thinks Tim Tebow should pipe down] nfl.com, retrieved June 26, 2012. (Tedi Bruschi was a former New England Patriots linebacker.)</ref> Pressed for a response, Tebow simply smiled and said, "I can't help him with that. That would be pretty hard."<ref>http://content.usatoday.com/communities/thehuddle/post/2012/06/jets-tim-tebow-on-tedy-bruschis-advice-i-just-do-what-im-told/1?loc=interstitialskip</ref>
|-
|Josh Hamilton
|baseball
|Used to be a drug addict, then became a born-again Christian and plays major league baseball now. He has appeared on Glenn Beck's show to talk about his faith and addiction.
|-
|Billy Sunday
|baseball
|Left a $5,000 a year salary (1891 dollars) as a star baseball player for a $75 a month salary to become a [[Christian]] preacher;<ref>http://www.biblebelievers.com/billy_sunday/</ref> his radio evangelism was such a sensation that the [[FCC]] formed in response
|-
|[[Dennis Hastert]]
|wrestling coach
|longest serving Republican [[Speaker of the House]] in history (1999-2007), he had previously coached Yorkville High School to the Illinois state championship in 1976
|-
|Matt Hasselbeck
|football
|Pro Bowl quarterback is a Christian who lends his name to "Tweet for Youcef" campaign organized by the [[ACLJ]], in support of the Iranian Christian pastor who has been sentenced to death.
|-
|Bill Laimbeer
|basketball
|led the [[Detroit Pistons]] to two [[NBA]] titles by defeating [[Michael Jordan]], [[Larry Bird]] and [[Magic Johnson]]; for a center, Laimbeer had an amazing outside shot and free-throw percentage, showing the versatility of a [[conservative]]; illustrating their [[double standard]], liberals whined about Laimbeer's rough style of play, without complaining about [[Dennis Rodman]]
|-
|Tim Thomas
|hockey
|A [[conservative]], Thomas declined to attend a ceremony staged by the [[Obama]] [[White House]] after Thomas's team won the [[Stanley Cup]].<ref>http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012/01/boston-bruins-goalie-snubs-president-obama-111928.html</ref> Thomas is a four-time [[NHL]] All-Star as a goalie - a great conservative position to play!<ref>http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=610011</ref>
|-
|Curt Schilling
|baseball
|led the hopeless [[Boston Red Sox]] to a stunning [[World Series]] championship in 2004 after defeating the [[liberal]] [[New York Yankees]] in the American League Championship Series; for an encore he helped Scott Brown win "[[Ted Kennedy|Kennedy]]'s seat," an even greater upset. Also was co-MVP of the 2001 World Series, in which he helped the Arizona Diamondbacks defeat the Yankees in one of the biggest World Series upsets in history.
|-
|[[Jim Bunning]]
|baseball
|former Republican Senator (KY); he pitched a perfect game with the fewest pitches ever in the National League (only 90) -- like a true conservative! Bunning is also one of only five players to pitch a no-hitter in both the National and American Leagues.
|-
|George Allen
|football coach
|The father of [[conservative]] Senator George Allen, the coach ran a trick play once for President [[Richard Nixon]].<ref>http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/politics/GOP_drafts_NFL_talent-53346877.html</ref>
|-
|Mike Ditka
|football player and coach
|outspoken pro-lifer when he was considering running for public office
|-
|Philip Rivers
|football
|endorsed [[Rick Santorum]] with a strong statement on religious values
|-
|Janet Lynn
|figure skating<ref name="Lynn">"Considered One of the Greatest Freeskaters of All Time." [http://figureskating.about.com/od/famousfemaleiceskater1/p/janetlynn.htm]</ref>
|"Before every performance she would close her eyes and give thanks and praise to God. She believed that God had given her the gift of skating and in each performance she worked to glorify God."<ref name="Lynn"/> Lynn, once the highest-paid female athlete, also has written in support of conservative values.
|-
|[[Ted Williams]]
|baseball
|campaigned for Republicans, served as a fighter pilot, and also criticized the media, which was unfair to him, even denying him the MVP when he hit over .400 in 1941. It could be argued that [[Joe DiMaggio]]'s 56-game hit streak was more impressive that year, but the media bias was clearly a factor in the vote. One sportswriter inexplicably left Williams off his ballot entirely.
|-
|[[Kurt Warner]]
|football
|pro-lifer who led two ''different'' teams to the [[Super Bowl]], one of whom was the underachieving Cardinals.
|-
|[[Zach Johnson]]
|golf
|won the [[Masters]] on [[Easter Sunday]] against the heavily favored Tiger Woods,<ref>http://www.fcagolf.org/masters-peace</ref> when Woods was at the peak of his career, and then gave credit to [[Jesus Christ]]
|-
|Trevor Bayne
|auto racing
|Gave credit to God for being the youngest Daytona 500 winner
|-
|Pete Sampras
|tennis<ref>Winner of 14 Grand Slam singles titles.</ref>
|Held the record for the longest time as #1 in the world -- more than 5 years -- until tied by Roger Federer due to his winning Wimbledon in 2012.
|-
|[[Mary Lou Retton]]
|gymnastics
|Olympic gold medalist, delivered the Pledge of Allegiance at the 2004 Republican National Convention.
|-
|Karl Malone
|basketball
|NBA Most Valuable Player and All-Star selection. He overcame troubled youth years and became a role model. Donated to the George W. Bush campaign and visited our troops in Afghanistan.
|-
|Steve Largent
|football
|former Republican Congressman (OK)
|-
|[[Jack Kemp]]
|football
|author of Kemp-Roth tax cuts as a Republican congressman from upstate [[New York]]; was also the vice presidential Republican candidate in 1996
|-
|Drew Brees
|football
|Led the [[New Orleans Saints]] to victory in the 2009 [[Super Bowl]]--professed his belief in Jesus Christ. <ref>[http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=t0buCfbFuHw STV Interview with Drew Brees]</ref>
|-
|Chris Dudley
|basketball
|Republican nominee for Oregon governor
|-
|[[Jim Ryun]]
|track
|former Republican Congressman (KS)
|-
|[[J.C. Watts]]
|football
|former Republican Congressman (OK)
|-
|[[John Elway]]
|football
|supporter of Republican candidates
|-
|Lynn Swann
|football
|Republican candidate for governor (PA)
|-
|Jeff Suppan
|baseball
|did a pro-life ad while winning the World Series in 2006
|-
|Rick Monday
|baseball
|In 1976 he saved an American Flag from burning at the hands of two protestors
|-
|Dan Hampton
|football
|helped lead the Chicago Bears to their 1985 Super Bowl title, but declined an invitation to a ceremony held decades later by the [[Obama]] White House.
|-
|Paul Azinger
|golf
|PGA champion who criticized Obama
|-
|Jack Lynch
|hurling
|One of the greatest ever dual players. As Taoiseach, reduced taxes and thereby increased employment in Ireland.
|-
|Lewis Hamilton
|auto racing
|outspoken Christian, describing his 2008 world championship win as "a blessing"
|-
|Doug Flutie
|football
|endorsed [[Scott Brown]] for [[U.S. Senate]] in [[Massachusetts]]
|-
|John Elway
|football
|Is a registered Republican in Colorado.
|-
|Michael Jones
|rugby
|His Christian beliefs caused him to abstain from playing or training on Sundays. Recently endorsed the conservative New Zealand National Party
|-
|Ewan Murray
|rugby
|Observes the Sabbath and does not play for his club (Newcastle) or country (Scotland) on Sundays.
|-
|Eric Liddell
|track
|Honoured in both Scotland and China as one of their greatest ever athletes, Liddell refused to run in the 1924 Olympic 100m on a Sunday despite pressure from a number of high ranking officials including the then Prince of Wales and future King Edward viii. He did compete in the 400m and, though it was not his best event, he won the gold medal! Returned to China as a missionary and was devoted to helping the sick and poor.
|-
|Jason Robinson
|rugby
|Becoming a born-again Christian enabled him to reform his troubled personal life
|-
|Ryan Hall
|Track
|Evangelical Christian, said God was his trainer
|-
|[[Annie Oakley]]
|Sharpshooter
|Came to fame in her teens as an exhibition shooter, later to international fame in Buffalo Bill's Wild West show.
|-
|[[Gerald Ford]]
|Football
|Played center and linebacker for the [[University of Michigan]] and led them to two undefeated championship seasons. He was later offered professional contracts by two NFL franchises, but declined in order to attend law school. Later, Ford became minority leader of the [[House of Representatives]] and was appointed [[Vice President]] following the resignation of [[Spiro Agnew]], and then became president when [[Richard Nixon]] resigned. Ford praised and introduced [[conservative]] [[Robert Bork]] at the beginning of his contentious nomination hearings in 1987.
|}

== Stars Who Have Taken a Conservative or Religious Position ==

{| class="wikitable sortable"
|-
!Athlete
!Sport
![[Conservatism]]
|-
|Daniel Murphy
|Baseball
|"I do disagree with the lifestyle, 100%," he said in 2015 in reference to [[homosexuality]].<ref>http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/mets/billy-bean-mlb-inclusion-ambassador-visits-mets-article-1.2135840</ref>
|-
|[[Kevin Durant]]
|Basketball
|Gives all the credit to [[Christ]] as he proves he is the most valuable player in the [[NBA]]. The [[liberal media]] actually scoffed at his expression of [[faith]].
|-
|Gabby Douglas
|Gymnastics
|Gave glory to God upon making the cut to represent the United States in the [[Olympics 2012|2012 Olympics]], and won the gold in the All-Around competition, as well as with the United States team event.
|-
|Tara Lipinski
|Figure skating
|Youngest (15) gold medalist in figure skating history, Tara gave credit to St. Therese of Lisieux for helping her win.<ref>http://www.thegregorian.org/blog/american-catholic-hall-of-fame-sports-figures</ref>
|-
|Yulia Lipnitskaya
|Figure Skating
||Russia's youngest gold medalist proudly displays her Christian cross necklace for the world to see. <ref>[http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1953244-russian-teen-yulia-lipnitskaya-steals-show-in-olympic-figure-skating-team-trophy Russian Teen Yulia Lipnitskaya Steals Show in Olympic Figure Skating Team Trophy, Bleacher Report.com, February 8,2014]</ref>
|-
|[[Babe Ruth]]
|baseball
|defended [[Catholic]]ism, saying that it gave him a standard for him to strive for personally
|-
|[[Jackie Robinson]]
|baseball
|pioneer in [[human rights]] and [[racial]] [[equality]], first African-American Major League Baseball player, Republican activist with the courage to stand up against liberal attacks on his character
|-
|A.C. Green
|basketball
|record-holder for the longest number of consecutive games in the rough, injury-prone [[NBA]], Green has long been an outspoken advocate of [[abstinence]]
|-
|Lolo Jones
|Olympic hurdler
|outspoken supporter of [[abstinence]]
|-
|Al Oerter
|track and field
|a self-confessed "old fashioned Olympian,"<ref>http://www.sify.com/sports/olympics/Profile/Al_Oerter.html</ref> this four-time Olympics discus champion spoke out against the use of steroids and their harmful effects during a time when other athletes were relying on them
|-
|Bubba Smith
|football
|one of the greatest defensive lineman, Bubba Smith gave up a lucrative contract to do beer commercials because he was concerned about the effect that alcohol has on people
|-
|David Tyree
|football
|hero of the upset victory by the New York Giants in the 2008 [[Super Bowl]] with a phenomenal catch, Tyree spoke out against [[same-sex marriage]], and later tweeted: "People of [[faith]] ... direct some prayers my way. Got darts comin from every direction. Blessed are those persecuted for [[Jesus|His name]]'s sake."<ref>http://sports.espn.go.com/new-york/nfl/news/story?id=6667583</ref>
|-
|Roger Staubach
|football
|an active Catholic, he told the press he said a "[[Hail Mary]]" during his last-ditch 50-yard pass toward the end zone in a 1975 playoff game, which was caught for a come-from-behind victory for his Cowboys; the name for such a football pass has stuck ever since.<ref>http://www.thegregorian.org/blog/american-catholic-hall-of-fame-sports-figures</ref>
|-
|Manny Pacquiao
|Boxing
|Evangelical Roman Catholic Politician for The Philippians House of Representatives, has spoken out against Gay "Marriage".
|-
|[[Stan Musial]]
|Baseball
|The greatest [[National League]] player from the [[World War II]] era, Musial was a devout, lifelong Catholic<ref>http://www.patheos.com/blogs/getreligion/2013/01/stan-musial-wore-his-faith-on-his-sleeve/</ref> who attended church every week.
|}

== References ==

<references/>

== See also ==
*[[Essay:Greatest Conservative Songs]]
*[[Essay:Greatest Conservative Movies]]
*[[Essay:Greatest Conservative Television Shows]]
*[[Overrated Sports Stars]]
{{Conservatism}}
[[Category:Essays]]
[[Category:Sports]]

Essay:Greatest Conservative Sports Stars

2015-03-12T18:49:33Z

Tomqua:

Most sports stars are probably [[conservative]]. Athletes at all levels of competition frequently praise [[God]] for giving them the strength to succeed at their sports. Here are some of the greatest:

{| class="wikitable sortable"
|-
!Athlete
!Sport
![[Conservatism]]
|-
|[[Chuck Norris]]
|karate
|Six-time undefeated World Professional Karate Champion, middleweight division, and the first westerner ever to achieve an eighth degree black belt in Tae Kwon Do; now a leading conservative commentator.
|-
|[[Jim Jordan]]
|wrestling
|two-time NCAA Division I wrestling champion, which included defeating a future Olympic gold medalist, and four-time state champion; leading [[conservative]] in [[Congress]] who chaired the Republican Study Committee for the 112th Congress.
|-
|Matt Birk
|football
|outspokenly pro-life and critical of same-sex marriage, Matt Birk has been repeatedly selected to the Pro Bowl, was the starting center for the Super Bowl champion Baltimore Ravens in 2013, and is ranked as one of the most intelligent professional athletes
|-
|Nolan Ryan
|baseball
|went from being one of the greatest pitchers of all time (7 no-hitters) to endorsing Texan Lieutenant Governor David Dewhurst as "a proven conservative"
|-
|[[Jon Runyan]]
|football
|one of the best linemen in the NFL who was selected for the Pro Bowl, Runyan was a two-term Republican Congressman (NJ) from 2011 to 2015
|-
|Novak Djokovic
|tennis
|Current number 1 player in the world, Novak gives glory to God with the sign of the [[Crucifixion|Cross]] after big tennis victories. While he was winning the intense finals of the Australian Open in 2012, he did the sign of the cross after key points and even kissed a wooden cross, which the [[liberal media]] falsely described as "kissing his necklace."<ref>http://trueblueconservative.com/2012/01/djokovic-pulls-a-tebow-southern-prose/</ref>
|-
|[[Tim Tebow]]
|football<ref>The first college sophomore to win the [[Heisman Trophy]], and the only quarterback to lead his team to two [[BCS]] college championships.</ref>
|[[pro-life]], outspoken Christian; an analyst for the [[lamestream media]] said about him, "You need to disappear, okay, [[Tim Tebow]]?"<ref>Tedy Bruschi continued to say about Tebow, "You're not the starting quarterback, it's Mark Sanchez's team. I want my voice to come from my head coach and my quarterback -- my starting quarterback. That message has to be consistent. I don't want all this competition brewing, and every time you speak and anytime you talk about competition or anything like that, you're twisting things," he went on. "I want one voice. One quarterback, not two." [http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d829b6a76/article/tedy-bruschi-thinks-tim-tebow-should-pipe-down Tedy Bruschi thinks Tim Tebow should pipe down] nfl.com, retrieved June 26, 2012. (Tedi Bruschi was a former New England Patriots linebacker.)</ref> Pressed for a response, Tebow simply smiled and said, "I can't help him with that. That would be pretty hard."<ref>http://content.usatoday.com/communities/thehuddle/post/2012/06/jets-tim-tebow-on-tedy-bruschis-advice-i-just-do-what-im-told/1?loc=interstitialskip</ref>
|-
|Josh Hamilton
|baseball
|Used to be a drug addict, then became a born-again Christian and plays major league baseball now. He has appeared on Glenn Beck's show to talk about his faith and addiction.
|-
|Billy Sunday
|baseball
|Left a $5,000 a year salary (1891 dollars) as a star baseball player for a $75 a month salary to become a [[Christian]] preacher;<ref>http://www.biblebelievers.com/billy_sunday/</ref> his radio evangelism was such a sensation that the [[FCC]] formed in response
|-
|[[Dennis Hastert]]
|wrestling coach
|longest serving Republican [[Speaker of the House]] in history (1999-2007), he had previously coached Yorkville High School to the Illinois state championship in 1976
|-
|Matt Hasselbeck
|football
|Pro Bowl quarterback is a Christian who lends his name to "Tweet for Youcef" campaign organized by the [[ACLJ]], in support of the Iranian Christian pastor who has been sentenced to death.
|-
|Bill Laimbeer
|basketball
|led the [[Detroit Pistons]] to two [[NBA]] titles by defeating [[Michael Jordan]], [[Larry Bird]] and [[Magic Johnson]]; for a center, Laimbeer had an amazing outside shot and free-throw percentage, showing the versatility of a [[conservative]]; illustrating their [[double standard]], liberals whined about Laimbeer's rough style of play, without complaining about [[Dennis Rodman]]
|-
|Tim Thomas
|hockey
|A [[conservative]], Thomas declined to attend a ceremony staged by the [[Obama]] [[White House]] after Thomas's team won the [[Stanley Cup]].<ref>http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012/01/boston-bruins-goalie-snubs-president-obama-111928.html</ref> Thomas is a four-time [[NHL]] All-Star as a goalie - a great conservative position to play!<ref>http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=610011</ref>
|-
|Curt Schilling
|baseball
|led the hopeless [[Boston Red Sox]] to a stunning [[World Series]] championship in 2004 after defeating the [[liberal]] [[New York Yankees]] in the American League Championship Series; for an encore he helped Scott Brown win "[[Ted Kennedy|Kennedy]]'s seat," an even greater upset. Also was co-MVP of the 2001 World Series, in which he helped the Arizona Diamondbacks defeat the Yankees in one of the biggest World Series upsets in history.
|-
|[[Jim Bunning]]
|baseball
|former Republican Senator (KY); he pitched a perfect game with the fewest pitches ever in the National League (only 90) -- like a true conservative! Bunning is also one of only five players to pitch a no-hitter in both the National and American Leagues.
|-
|George Allen
|football coach
|The father of [[conservative]] Senator George Allen, the coach ran a trick play once for President [[Richard Nixon]].<ref>http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/politics/GOP_drafts_NFL_talent-53346877.html</ref>
|-
|Mike Ditka
|football player and coach
|outspoken pro-lifer when he was considering running for public office
|-
|Philip Rivers
|football
|endorsed [[Rick Santorum]] with a strong statement on religious values
|-
|Janet Lynn
|figure skating<ref name="Lynn">"Considered One of the Greatest Freeskaters of All Time." [http://figureskating.about.com/od/famousfemaleiceskater1/p/janetlynn.htm]</ref>
|"Before every performance she would close her eyes and give thanks and praise to God. She believed that God had given her the gift of skating and in each performance she worked to glorify God."<ref name="Lynn"/> Lynn, once the highest-paid female athlete, also has written in support of conservative values.
|-
|[[Ted Williams]]
|baseball
|campaigned for Republicans, served as a fighter pilot, and also criticized the media, which was unfair to him, even denying him the MVP when he hit over .400 in 1941. It could be argued that [[Joe DiMaggio]]'s 56-game hit streak was more impressive that year, but the media bias was clearly a factor in the vote. One sportswriter inexplicably left Williams off his ballot entirely.
|-
|[[Kurt Warner]]
|football
|pro-lifer who led two ''different'' teams to the [[Super Bowl]], one of whom was the underachieving Cardinals.
|-
|[[Zach Johnson]]
|golf
|won the [[Masters]] on [[Easter Sunday]] against the heavily favored Tiger Woods,<ref>http://www.fcagolf.org/masters-peace</ref> when Woods was at the peak of his career, and then gave credit to [[Jesus Christ]]
|-
|Trevor Bayne
|auto racing
|Gave credit to God for being the youngest Daytona 500 winner
|-
|Pete Sampras
|tennis<ref>Winner of 14 Grand Slam singles titles.</ref>
|Held the record for the longest time as #1 in the world -- more than 5 years -- until tied by Roger Federer due to his winning Wimbledon in 2012.
|-
|[[Mary Lou Retton]]
|gymnastics
|Olympic gold medalist, delivered the Pledge of Allegiance at the 2004 Republican National Convention.
|-
|Karl Malone
|basketball
|NBA Most Valuable Player and All-Star selection. He overcame troubled youth years and became a role model. Donated to the George W. Bush campaign and visited our troops in Afghanistan.
|-
|Steve Largent
|football
|former Republican Congressman (OK)
|-
|[[Jack Kemp]]
|football
|author of Kemp-Roth tax cuts as a Republican congressman from upstate [[New York]]; was also the vice presidential Republican candidate in 1996
|-
|Drew Brees
|football
|Led the [[New Orleans Saints]] to victory in the 2009 [[Super Bowl]]--professed his belief in Jesus Christ. <ref>[http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=t0buCfbFuHw STV Interview with Drew Brees]</ref>
|-
|Chris Dudley
|basketball
|Republican nominee for Oregon governor
|-
|[[Jim Ryun]]
|track
|former Republican Congressman (KS)
|-
|[[J.C. Watts]]
|football
|former Republican Congressman (OK)
|-
|[[John Elway]]
|football
|supporter of Republican candidates
|-
|Lynn Swann
|football
|Republican candidate for governor (PA)
|-
|Jeff Suppan
|baseball
|did a pro-life ad while winning the World Series in 2006
|-
|Rick Monday
|baseball
|In 1976 he saved an American Flag from burning at the hands of two protestors
|-
|Dan Hampton
|football
|helped lead the Chicago Bears to their 1985 Super Bowl title, but declined an invitation to a ceremony held decades later by the [[Obama]] White House.
|-
|Paul Azinger
|golf
|PGA champion who criticized Obama
|-
|Jack Lynch
|hurling
|One of the greatest ever dual players. As Taoiseach, reduced taxes and thereby increased employment in Ireland.
|-
|Lewis Hamilton
|auto racing
|outspoken Christian, describing his 2008 world championship win as "a blessing"
|-
|Doug Flutie
|football
|endorsed [[Scott Brown]] for [[U.S. Senate]] in [[Massachusetts]]
|-
|John Elway
|football
|Is a registered Republican in Colorado.
|-
|Michael Jones
|rugby
|His Christian beliefs caused him to abstain from playing or training on Sundays. Recently endorsed the conservative New Zealand National Party
|-
|Ewan Murray
|rugby
|Observes the Sabbath and does not play for his club (Newcastle) or country (Scotland) on Sundays.
|-
|Eric Liddell
|track
|Honoured in both Scotland and China as one of their greatest ever athletes, Liddell refused to run in the 1924 Olympic 100m on a Sunday despite pressure from a number of high ranking officials including the then Prince of Wales and future King Edward viii. He did compete in the 400m and, though it was not his best event, he won the gold medal! Returned to China as a missionary and was devoted to helping the sick and poor.
|-
|Gavin Peacock
|soccer
|Attacking midfielder for Newcastle, Chelsea and QPR then a respected footballer commentator. From 2006, combined commentating with attending a seminary. Now training full-time for the ministry.
|-
|Jason Robinson
|rugby
|Becoming a born-again Christian enabled him to reform his troubled personal life
|-
|Ryan Hall
|Track
|Evangelical Christian, said God was his trainer
|-
|[[Annie Oakley]]
|Sharpshooter
|Came to fame in her teens as an exhibition shooter, later to international fame in Buffalo Bill's Wild West show.
|-
|[[Gerald Ford]]
|Football
|Played center and linebacker for the [[University of Michigan]] and led them to two undefeated championship seasons. He was later offered professional contracts by two NFL franchises, but declined in order to attend law school. Later, Ford became minority leader of the [[House of Representatives]] and was appointed [[Vice President]] following the resignation of [[Spiro Agnew]], and then became president when [[Richard Nixon]] resigned. Ford praised and introduced [[conservative]] [[Robert Bork]] at the beginning of his contentious nomination hearings in 1987.
|}

== Stars Who Have Taken a Conservative or Religious Position ==

{| class="wikitable sortable"
|-
!Athlete
!Sport
![[Conservatism]]
|-
|Daniel Murphy
|Baseball
|"I do disagree with the lifestyle, 100%," he said in 2015 in reference to [[homosexuality]].<ref>http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/mets/billy-bean-mlb-inclusion-ambassador-visits-mets-article-1.2135840</ref>
|-
|[[Kevin Durant]]
|Basketball
|Gives all the credit to [[Christ]] as he proves he is the most valuable player in the [[NBA]]. The [[liberal media]] actually scoffed at his expression of [[faith]].
|-
|Gabby Douglas
|Gymnastics
|Gave glory to God upon making the cut to represent the United States in the [[Olympics 2012|2012 Olympics]], and won the gold in the All-Around competition, as well as with the United States team event.
|-
|Tara Lipinski
|Figure skating
|Youngest (15) gold medalist in figure skating history, Tara gave credit to St. Therese of Lisieux for helping her win.<ref>http://www.thegregorian.org/blog/american-catholic-hall-of-fame-sports-figures</ref>
|-
|Yulia Lipnitskaya
|Figure Skating
||Russia's youngest gold medalist proudly displays her Christian cross necklace for the world to see. <ref>[http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1953244-russian-teen-yulia-lipnitskaya-steals-show-in-olympic-figure-skating-team-trophy Russian Teen Yulia Lipnitskaya Steals Show in Olympic Figure Skating Team Trophy, Bleacher Report.com, February 8,2014]</ref>
|-
|[[Babe Ruth]]
|baseball
|defended [[Catholic]]ism, saying that it gave him a standard for him to strive for personally
|-
|[[Jackie Robinson]]
|baseball
|pioneer in [[human rights]] and [[racial]] [[equality]], first African-American Major League Baseball player, Republican activist with the courage to stand up against liberal attacks on his character
|-
|A.C. Green
|basketball
|record-holder for the longest number of consecutive games in the rough, injury-prone [[NBA]], Green has long been an outspoken advocate of [[abstinence]]
|-
|Lolo Jones
|Olympic hurdler
|outspoken supporter of [[abstinence]]
|-
|Al Oerter
|track and field
|a self-confessed "old fashioned Olympian,"<ref>http://www.sify.com/sports/olympics/Profile/Al_Oerter.html</ref> this four-time Olympics discus champion spoke out against the use of steroids and their harmful effects during a time when other athletes were relying on them
|-
|Bubba Smith
|football
|one of the greatest defensive lineman, Bubba Smith gave up a lucrative contract to do beer commercials because he was concerned about the effect that alcohol has on people
|-
|David Tyree
|football
|hero of the upset victory by the New York Giants in the 2008 [[Super Bowl]] with a phenomenal catch, Tyree spoke out against [[same-sex marriage]], and later tweeted: "People of [[faith]] ... direct some prayers my way. Got darts comin from every direction. Blessed are those persecuted for [[Jesus|His name]]'s sake."<ref>http://sports.espn.go.com/new-york/nfl/news/story?id=6667583</ref>
|-
|Roger Staubach
|football
|an active Catholic, he told the press he said a "[[Hail Mary]]" during his last-ditch 50-yard pass toward the end zone in a 1975 playoff game, which was caught for a come-from-behind victory for his Cowboys; the name for such a football pass has stuck ever since.<ref>http://www.thegregorian.org/blog/american-catholic-hall-of-fame-sports-figures</ref>
|-
|Manny Pacquiao
|Boxing
|Evangelical Roman Catholic Politician for The Philippians House of Representatives, has spoken out against Gay "Marriage".
|-
|[[Stan Musial]]
|Baseball
|The greatest [[National League]] player from the [[World War II]] era, Musial was a devout, lifelong Catholic<ref>http://www.patheos.com/blogs/getreligion/2013/01/stan-musial-wore-his-faith-on-his-sleeve/</ref> who attended church every week.
|}

== References ==

<references/>

== See also ==
*[[Essay:Greatest Conservative Songs]]
*[[Essay:Greatest Conservative Movies]]
*[[Essay:Greatest Conservative Television Shows]]
*[[Overrated Sports Stars]]
{{Conservatism}}
[[Category:Essays]]
[[Category:Sports]]

Talk:Atheism and love

2014-11-16T19:35:58Z

Tomqua:

Ah Cons!
How sad it is that you have to quote mine the subject of love.
:Here's a quote, Cons; something said by my wife who suddenly pressed herself up against my back as I was cooking bacon the other morning...
:''Thou art my life, my love, my heart,''
::''The very eyes of me,''
:''And hast command of every part,''
::''To live and die for thee.''

Robert Herrick at breakfast time is a fine thing, and it is especially welcome after forty years together. But not surprising because that is what we are Cons, and what we always have been.

Religion has had nothing to do with it. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 23:55, 14 November 2014 (EST)

=== AlanE, my response ===

1) Provide an atheistic explanation of love

2) Show me why the social science and historical data relevant to atheism/love that I provided isn't accurate/relevant

3) If atheism is such an embodiment of romantic love, why do women join Western World atheism to a significantly lesser degree? See: [[Atheism and women]]. AlanE, which is the bigger market for romance novels? Women or men?

4) Christmas is lovely holiday filled with good cheer (thanks to Christendom) and atheists consistently try to spoil it! And atheists have no holidays to boot! See: [[War on Christmas]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:29, 15 November 2014 (EST)

:Been busy, Cons. Hoped to answer your questions when I got up this morning but family things took priority. (As they do.) Now I am back on I see the article has become basically a copy of numerous other "Atheism and....." articles. (You could copy and paste for your country, mate.) So there's not a lot of point in continuing my line of argument.
:Except to ask... Where did I say "atheism is...an embodiment of romantic love"?
:And to say that the Evans family takes the tradition of Christmas very seriously and you would find our celebrations truly Dickensian on the day itself. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 21:13, 15 November 2014 (EST)

==How about==
Some new photos for your articles, you use the same ones over and over.--[[User:Tomqua|Tomqua]] 02:10, 15 November 2014 (EST)
:Thanks for the input. I posted a new picture to CP and featured it in the article. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:53, 15 November 2014 (EST)
=== New pictures added to wiki as per your request ===
[[File:Beggar.jpg|thumb|left|275px|A child in nontheistic [[Thailand]] where the nontheistic form of [[Buddhism]] called the Theravada school of Buddhism is prevalent. In 2010, the Pew Research Forum indicated that 93.2% of the people of Thailand were Buddhists. [http://www.pewforum.org/files/2012/12/globalReligion-tables.pdf]
 
[[Per capita]] [[atheism|atheists]] and [[agnosticism|agnostics]] in America give significantly less to charity than [[theism|theists]] even when church giving is not counted for theists (See: [[Atheism and charity|Atheism and uncharitableness]]). ]]
[[File:Valentine's Day Cake.jpg|240px|right|thumbnail|[[Saint Valentine's Day]] cake. Christians do good deeds through the grace of God and the compassion that is taught in the Bible. Going to heaven is simply the icing on the cake.]]
{{clear}}
: Clever. Devious indeed. Troll south-east Asia and choose a Buddhist (read nontheist) country for your new picture. I haven't been to Thailand, Cons. but I have been to India and, believe me, it is just as bad once you get off the tourist track.[[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 21:28, 15 November 2014 (EST)
::There is spiritual darkness in both atheism and polytheism.

::But there appears to be more spiritual and moral darkness to atheism. For example, I could not write an article entitled [[Hinduism and mass murder]]. And Ghandhi served a role model for non-violent resistance. On the other hand, atheists have been the biggest mass murders in history. See: [[Atheism and Mass Murder|Atheism and mass murder]]. And the [[secular left]] is known for engaging in senseless/inappropriate violence.

::In addition, I could and did write articles on [[Atheism and pornography]] and [[Atheism and child pornography]] and [[Atheism, pederasty and NAMBLA]] did so quite easily. And Thailand has a strong reputation for child trafficking and for decadent homosexual tourists visiting there to prey on children, but India does nave a strong reputation for this.

::Furthermore, I did have Indian/Hindu housemates in college and soon I will be doing some recreational activity with a Hindu neighbor. On the whole, Hindus are peaceable and polite. On the other hand, atheists are known for their profanity. See: [[Atheism and profanity]]

::In addition, the Hindus from India may like to bellyache about the Brits (who were social Darwinists and social Darwinism played a role in both WWI and WWII) and their exploitation of India, but they readily admit that the Brits did have a lot of good influence on them (legal system, etc. etc. And Judeo-Christianity played a role in the development of common law). And the USA had a good influence on both atheistic Japan after WWII and also had a good influence on atheistic China and a signification amount of the Christianization of China is due to Chinese students going back to China. And Christianization has been good for China economically due to the effect of the Protestant work ethic within their country.[http://blog.tifwe.org/the-protestant-work-ethic-alive-well-in-china/] And the cultural heritage of the Protestant work ethic has been good for atheistic Germany/Scandinavia/Northern Europe (but their moral decline on the whole after the waning of Christianity in their respective geographic areas has been ugly. See: [[Bestiality and Sweden]] [[Netherlands and bestiality]] and [[Denmark and bestiality]] and [[Bestiality and Germany]]).

::Next, you did not acknowledge/address the points (points 1-4) I made in my previous post to you. Atheists do have a reputation for being prideful!!!! See: [[Atheism and arrogance]].

::Lastly, you will not find a single person who had more of a positive effect on history than [[Jesus Christ]] and even atheists are often reluctant to disparage Jesus in debates. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:29, 15 November 2014 (EST)

:Yes Cons, I did acknowledge your points - see above - I didn't answer them though.
:And while I'm at it, stop carrying on like a broken record. It's embarrassing.
:And by the way, the "social Darwinist" Brits came into into India well before Darwin. Over 200 years in fact.
:And for your last point, I agree that Christ has had a positive effect on history. You may, however, like to research the Thirty Years' War's impact on the population of northern Europe.(Just saying, Cons,)
:Cheers [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 23:05, 15 November 2014 (EST)
Thanks for the correction about the Brits and for other acknowledgments. In addition, history does suggest that social Darwinism being introduced upon the Brits probably did increase their exploitative human tendencies.

I/we wrote my atheism articles due to the religious discrimination/repression that atheists engage in and due to their arrogance of the New Atheists and many other atheists. Plus, the negative effect that atheism has on the world. But I/we can learn from anyone. And that includes that nontheist Sun Tzu who famously advised to attack what is weak when it comes to the opposition/defenses. And there is a whole lot of weakness to atheism on the [[Atheism and love]] front!!!! Sun Tzu also advised that it is not good to engage in endless war and to address matters in the most strategic/efficient/quickest way possible. In the next 30-85 years, I/we see global [[desecularization]] taking a large toll on adherence to atheism and that includes atheism in the Western World (I/we agree with [[Eric Kaufmann]]'s work on this matter). I/we wish that atheists/evolutionists did not use the power of the state for indoctrination/repression (see: [[Atheist indoctrination]]), but unfortunately they do. And I/we think that Christians should engage in critiques/apologetics in relation to atheism in order to help speed its continuing [[global atheism|global collapse]].

Lastly, from the atheistic Wikipedia (founded by an atheist and an agnostic): "Initially a war between Protestant and Catholic states in the fragmenting Holy Roman Empire, it gradually developed into a more general conflict involving most of the great powers of Europe,[15] '''becoming less about religion and more a continuation of the France–Habsburg rivalry for European political pre-eminence.'''" (bolding emphasis added). [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:31, 15 November 2014 (EST)

::Well done. Yes. That is what the Thirty Years' War was and what it became. Why you have to recite the ideology or lack of of your source I find strange. I have never found it necessary to dig into the background of C V Wedgewood who gave me my first insights into the war half a century ago.
:::And please, Cons, stop this silly I/we business. It doesn't work. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 00:25, 16 November 2014 (EST)
Citing testimony from the opposition (what the legal profession calls [http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=884 hostile/adverse witness testimony]) is always useful - especially when many atheists engage in the [[genetic fallacy]].

Second, you may not want to think that more than one person uses the User: Conservative account, yet it has been pointed out the footnoting style of the editing from the account has varied and there are doubts that the individual/individuals who created the [[homosexuality]] article also created the [[Atheist actions against homosexuals]] article (partly due to the footnoting style and partly due to the content). I/we do find it humorous that so much wrongheaded energy has been devoted to "internet armchair psychoanalyzing" the editor(s) of the User: Conservative account by some individuals who are obviously incompetent.

It reminds me of when C.S. Lewis wrote:

"Since then I have watched with some care similar imaginary histories both of my own books and of books by friends whose real history I knew. [e.g., J.R.R. Tolkien was also one of Lewis' friends.] Reviewers, both friendly and hostile, will dash you off such histories with great confidence; will tell you what public events had directed the author's mind to this or that, what other authors had influenced him, what his over-all intention was, what sort of audience he principally addressed, why - and when - he did everything.

Now I must first record my impression; then, distinct from it, what I can say with certainty. My impression is that in the whole of my experience not one of these guesses has on any one point been right; that the method shows a record of 100 percent failure.

You would expect that by mere chance they would hit as often as they miss. But it is my impression that they do no such thing. I can't remember a single hit. But as I have not kept a careful record my mere impression may be mistaken. What I think I can say with certainty is that they are usually wrong."[http://textualcriticism.scienceontheweb.net/SUPLEM/CSLewis.html] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 03:34, 16 November 2014 (EST)
:AlanE, someone who has edited using the User: Conservative account used to have a pastor from Australia. pOn the whole, you have been cordial with me/us which is appreciated. And cordiality is something I/we have found that is common among Australians along with a sense of humor. If more people were like you, perhaps the User: Conservative account would be less mysterious. Have a good day, mate. :)[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 04:18, 16 November 2014 (EST)
::Thanks Conservative, I enjoy your articles but I find any article that shows a photo of Peter Singer to be a turn off. He is to say the least, and from a totally platonic POV, unattractive.--[[User:Tomqua|Tomqua]] 14:27, 16 November 2014 (EST)
:::PS. When I toured The USA some 20 years back I was often mistaken for an Aussie, and not the "whinging pom" that I am :)--[[User:Tomqua|Tomqua]] 14:35, 16 November 2014 (EST)

Talk:Atheism and love

2014-11-16T19:27:51Z

Tomqua:

Talk:Atheism and love

2014-11-15T07:10:40Z

Tomqua:

Talk:Essay: Militant atheism and short man's syndrome

2014-10-24T21:31:10Z

Tomqua: /* Is this a satirical essay */

== as can be seen [HERE] and [HERE] ==

WHERE AND WHERE? [[User:ScottDG|ScottDG]] 17:01, 31 December 2011 (EST)
::I inserted the links shortly after creating those. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:54, 31 December 2011 (EST)

== Exceptions ==

I was hoping to add an exceptions section, but for some reason the page is locked. Obese atheist Stephen Fry, for example, is 6'4". For atheist Richard Darwinism I can only find on-line the information "there are no public sources confirming Richard Dawkins' height". Come on Señor Dawkins - what have you got to hide? --[[User:QPR|QPR]] 09:17, 2 January 2012 (EST)
:Seems he's 5 feet 10 inches.[http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1468026/bio] --[[User:RFColleton|RFColleton]] 09:26, 2 January 2012 (EST)
::Thanks - well spotted. Bang on the average then. Shame. --[[User:QPR|QPR]] 09:34, 2 January 2012 (EST)
:::Bang on the average for a young English or American adult, unfortunately. Dawkins is 70. When he was born the average Englishman was 5 foot 8. PZ Myers is shorter though. From photos of him and Dawkins together I'd say he's about 5 foot 8 too, which puts him slightly below the average for a 54 year old American. --[[User:RFColleton|RFColleton]] 10:01, 2 January 2012 (EST)
::::Richard Dawkins is an agnostic and atheist poser. He is nothing more than a [[weak atheism|weak atheist]] which is nothing more than agnostics pretending to be atheists. Atheist posers are intellectually atheist runts. :) [[William Lane Craig]] called out [[Christopher Hitchens]] on the definition of atheism during a debate and Hitchens was clearly rattled and childishly pretended his earpiece wasn't working. Shockofgod's question is very effective against atheist posers and proud atheists who clearly can't justify their atheism. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:19, 2 January 2012 (EST)

== 90/10 ==

Just looking at the history of this page, and it seems a bit harsh on [[User:Becky|Becky]] to block her on the 90/10 rule when she has made only one contribution to the whole of Conservapedia, and in addition to delete that very contribution so nobody can read it. Clearly anyone has to start with a single contribution, and it's as likely as not, that as a newcomer, they will go for a talk page rather than an article. Does every newcomer get treated this way? Technically they all breach 90/10. --[[User:QPR|QPR]] 09:41, 2 January 2012 (EST)
::I see you are falling for the username Becky. Atheism clearly has a shortage of womenfolk and I suspect "Becky" was nothing more than a male atheist wiki dweller trying to gain mercy from the 90/10 rule (see: [[Atheism and women]]). It is kind of like male Muslims sneaking out of an area and avoiding capture wearing a burka! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:25, 2 January 2012 (EST)
:::That's a somewhat circular (as well as an irrelevant) argument. You're saying that since you believe there are few women atheists, then anyone you suspect of being an atheist (and Becky said nothing to suggest that she was) cannot be a woman. And thus your belief that there are few women atheists is reinforced. But if you're focussing on my use of the feminine pronoun, you really are missing the point. --[[User:QPR|QPR]] 14:05, 2 January 2012 (EST)
:::::Well it certainly seems as if some people have a SHORT temper concerning this essay. :) I showed a couple people the essay and they got a big laugh out of the essay. One person said her stomach hurt. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:10, 5 January 2012 (EST)
::::::Perhaps the person with stomach ache should consult a doctor. --[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 23:21, 5 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::::I have a feeling a YouTube video may come out discussing atheism's SHORTcomings. :) Perhaps, several YouTube videos. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 03:49, 6 January 2012 (EST)
::::::::::Sorry - evident sense of humour failure. So this is a spoof of [[Atheism and obesity]] after all. --[[User:QPR|QPR]] 08:13, 6 January 2012 (EST)
The [[Atheism and obesity]] article has over 60 sections showing the link between atheism and obesity. The weight of the evidence shows that atheism and lukewarm religion leads to obesity and fervent biblical Christianity is a causal factor for slimness. [https://www.google.com/search?q=orthodox+jews&biw=1024&bih=494&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=v8RKVMO8Is6qyAToxICoAQ&sqi=2&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAQ Orthodox Jews] tend to be slim as well. Unlike many prominent atheists and a gigantic amount of obese Chinese atheists, the biblical figures of Moses, Elijah, Mary, Joseph, Jesus, Peter and Paul were all slim! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:28, 24 October 2014 (EDT)

==Is this a satirical essay==
?--[[User:Tomqua|Tomqua]] 15:46, 24 October 2014 (EDT)
:I see it is, at least it is in the satire category. Tell me Conservative, do you consider genocide and domestic violence subjects worthy of satirizing?--[[User:Tomqua|Tomqua]] 15:52, 24 October 2014 (EDT)
::Satire in relation to prideful and immoral/unjust individuals and groups is a time honored tradition. And there are certainly people who appreciate such satire. For example, the Freedom From Atheism Foundation featured this article on its social media platform and it got over 900 likes.

::Sorry to hear that you disagree with having the atheist community exposed for their ill behavior via satire.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:18, 24 October 2014 (EDT)
::::Is "The use of the wrong pronoun" to cover up the fact you just called me the son of the Devil? Because I consider genocide inappropriate for satire? Don't worry, I got it captured. I think that is slander friend.--[[User:Tomqua|Tomqua]] 17:28, 24 October 2014 (EDT)
::::PS. It must have taken you at least an hour to hit the thumbs up 900 times. Good effort.--[[User:Tomqua|Tomqua]] 17:31, 24 October 2014 (EDT)

Talk:Essay: Militant atheism and short man's syndrome

2014-10-24T21:28:26Z

Tomqua: /* Is this a satirical essay */

== as can be seen [HERE] and [HERE] ==

WHERE AND WHERE? [[User:ScottDG|ScottDG]] 17:01, 31 December 2011 (EST)
::I inserted the links shortly after creating those. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:54, 31 December 2011 (EST)

== Exceptions ==

I was hoping to add an exceptions section, but for some reason the page is locked. Obese atheist Stephen Fry, for example, is 6'4". For atheist Richard Darwinism I can only find on-line the information "there are no public sources confirming Richard Dawkins' height". Come on Señor Dawkins - what have you got to hide? --[[User:QPR|QPR]] 09:17, 2 January 2012 (EST)
:Seems he's 5 feet 10 inches.[http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1468026/bio] --[[User:RFColleton|RFColleton]] 09:26, 2 January 2012 (EST)
::Thanks - well spotted. Bang on the average then. Shame. --[[User:QPR|QPR]] 09:34, 2 January 2012 (EST)
:::Bang on the average for a young English or American adult, unfortunately. Dawkins is 70. When he was born the average Englishman was 5 foot 8. PZ Myers is shorter though. From photos of him and Dawkins together I'd say he's about 5 foot 8 too, which puts him slightly below the average for a 54 year old American. --[[User:RFColleton|RFColleton]] 10:01, 2 January 2012 (EST)
::::Richard Dawkins is an agnostic and atheist poser. He is nothing more than a [[weak atheism|weak atheist]] which is nothing more than agnostics pretending to be atheists. Atheist posers are intellectually atheist runts. :) [[William Lane Craig]] called out [[Christopher Hitchens]] on the definition of atheism during a debate and Hitchens was clearly rattled and childishly pretended his earpiece wasn't working. Shockofgod's question is very effective against atheist posers and proud atheists who clearly can't justify their atheism. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:19, 2 January 2012 (EST)

== 90/10 ==

Just looking at the history of this page, and it seems a bit harsh on [[User:Becky|Becky]] to block her on the 90/10 rule when she has made only one contribution to the whole of Conservapedia, and in addition to delete that very contribution so nobody can read it. Clearly anyone has to start with a single contribution, and it's as likely as not, that as a newcomer, they will go for a talk page rather than an article. Does every newcomer get treated this way? Technically they all breach 90/10. --[[User:QPR|QPR]] 09:41, 2 January 2012 (EST)
::I see you are falling for the username Becky. Atheism clearly has a shortage of womenfolk and I suspect "Becky" was nothing more than a male atheist wiki dweller trying to gain mercy from the 90/10 rule (see: [[Atheism and women]]). It is kind of like male Muslims sneaking out of an area and avoiding capture wearing a burka! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:25, 2 January 2012 (EST)
:::That's a somewhat circular (as well as an irrelevant) argument. You're saying that since you believe there are few women atheists, then anyone you suspect of being an atheist (and Becky said nothing to suggest that she was) cannot be a woman. And thus your belief that there are few women atheists is reinforced. But if you're focussing on my use of the feminine pronoun, you really are missing the point. --[[User:QPR|QPR]] 14:05, 2 January 2012 (EST)
:::::Well it certainly seems as if some people have a SHORT temper concerning this essay. :) I showed a couple people the essay and they got a big laugh out of the essay. One person said her stomach hurt. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:10, 5 January 2012 (EST)
::::::Perhaps the person with stomach ache should consult a doctor. --[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 23:21, 5 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::::I have a feeling a YouTube video may come out discussing atheism's SHORTcomings. :) Perhaps, several YouTube videos. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 03:49, 6 January 2012 (EST)
::::::::::Sorry - evident sense of humour failure. So this is a spoof of [[Atheism and obesity]] after all. --[[User:QPR|QPR]] 08:13, 6 January 2012 (EST)

==Is this a satirical essay==
?--[[User:Tomqua|Tomqua]] 15:46, 24 October 2014 (EDT)
:I see it is, at least it is in the satire category. Tell me Conservative, do you consider genocide and domestic violence subjects worthy of satirizing?--[[User:Tomqua|Tomqua]] 15:52, 24 October 2014 (EDT)
::Satire in relation to prideful and immoral/unjust individuals and groups is a time honored tradition. And there are certainly people who appreciate such satire. For example, the Freedom From Atheism Foundation featured this article on its social media platform and it got over 900 likes.

::Sorry to hear that you disagree with having the atheist community exposed for their ill behavior via satire.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:18, 24 October 2014 (EDT)
:::Is "The use of the wrong pronoun" to cover up the fact you just called me the son of the Devil? Because I consider genocide inappropriate for satire? Don't worry, I got it captured. I think that is slander friend.--[[User:Tomqua|Tomqua]] 17:28, 24 October 2014 (EDT)

Talk:Essay: Militant atheism and short man's syndrome

2014-10-24T19:52:44Z

Tomqua: /* Is this a satirical essay */

== as can be seen [HERE] and [HERE] ==

WHERE AND WHERE? [[User:ScottDG|ScottDG]] 17:01, 31 December 2011 (EST)
::I inserted the links shortly after creating those. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:54, 31 December 2011 (EST)

== Exceptions ==

I was hoping to add an exceptions section, but for some reason the page is locked. Obese atheist Stephen Fry, for example, is 6'4". For atheist Richard Darwinism I can only find on-line the information "there are no public sources confirming Richard Dawkins' height". Come on Señor Dawkins - what have you got to hide? --[[User:QPR|QPR]] 09:17, 2 January 2012 (EST)
:Seems he's 5 feet 10 inches.[http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1468026/bio] --[[User:RFColleton|RFColleton]] 09:26, 2 January 2012 (EST)
::Thanks - well spotted. Bang on the average then. Shame. --[[User:QPR|QPR]] 09:34, 2 January 2012 (EST)
:::Bang on the average for a young English or American adult, unfortunately. Dawkins is 70. When he was born the average Englishman was 5 foot 8. PZ Myers is shorter though. From photos of him and Dawkins together I'd say he's about 5 foot 8 too, which puts him slightly below the average for a 54 year old American. --[[User:RFColleton|RFColleton]] 10:01, 2 January 2012 (EST)
::::Richard Dawkins is an agnostic and atheist poser. He is nothing more than a [[weak atheism|weak atheist]] which is nothing more than agnostics pretending to be atheists. Atheist posers are intellectually atheist runts. :) [[William Lane Craig]] called out [[Christopher Hitchens]] on the definition of atheism during a debate and Hitchens was clearly rattled and childishly pretended his earpiece wasn't working. Shockofgod's question is very effective against atheist posers and proud atheists who clearly can't justify their atheism. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:19, 2 January 2012 (EST)

== 90/10 ==

Just looking at the history of this page, and it seems a bit harsh on [[User:Becky|Becky]] to block her on the 90/10 rule when she has made only one contribution to the whole of Conservapedia, and in addition to delete that very contribution so nobody can read it. Clearly anyone has to start with a single contribution, and it's as likely as not, that as a newcomer, they will go for a talk page rather than an article. Does every newcomer get treated this way? Technically they all breach 90/10. --[[User:QPR|QPR]] 09:41, 2 January 2012 (EST)
::I see you are falling for the username Becky. Atheism clearly has a shortage of womenfolk and I suspect "Becky" was nothing more than a male atheist wiki dweller trying to gain mercy from the 90/10 rule (see: [[Atheism and women]]). It is kind of like male Muslims sneaking out of an area and avoiding capture wearing a burka! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:25, 2 January 2012 (EST)
:::That's a somewhat circular (as well as an irrelevant) argument. You're saying that since you believe there are few women atheists, then anyone you suspect of being an atheist (and Becky said nothing to suggest that she was) cannot be a woman. And thus your belief that there are few women atheists is reinforced. But if you're focussing on my use of the feminine pronoun, you really are missing the point. --[[User:QPR|QPR]] 14:05, 2 January 2012 (EST)
:::::Well it certainly seems as if some people have a SHORT temper concerning this essay. :) I showed a couple people the essay and they got a big laugh out of the essay. One person said his stomach hurt. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:10, 5 January 2012 (EST)
::::::Perhaps the person with stomach ache should consult a doctor. --[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 23:21, 5 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::::I have a feeling a YouTube video may come out discussing atheism's SHORTcomings. :) Perhaps, several YouTube videos. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 03:49, 6 January 2012 (EST)
::::::::::Sorry - evident sense of humour failure. So this is a spoof of [[Atheism and obesity]] after all. --[[User:QPR|QPR]] 08:13, 6 January 2012 (EST)
==Is this a satirical essay==
?--[[User:Tomqua|Tomqua]] 15:46, 24 October 2014 (EDT)
:I see it is, at least it is in the satire category. Tell me Conservative, do you consider genocide and domestic violence subjects worthy of satirizing?--[[User:Tomqua|Tomqua]] 15:52, 24 October 2014 (EDT)

Talk:Essay: Militant atheism and short man's syndrome

2014-10-24T19:46:55Z

Tomqua:

Talk:Atheist bullying

2014-10-19T16:20:36Z

Tomqua: /* Move this to the Essay section ? */

Were both Columbine killers atheists? No footnote given. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 11:26, 16 August 2010 (EDT)

As an atheist myself, I find that implication that atheists are bullies very offensive. [[User:Rlimb|Rlimb]]

= Several issues with this entry =
1. student populations are becoming increasingly atheist or non-religious 
Actually, you keep saying that population is becoming more and more Christian. There is some contradictory information here. 
2. Atheist students are commonly engaging in persecution of Christian students 
Commonly ? Some references are needed here. 
3. Was the Columbine shooting an atheist bullying ? Did he just kill Christians ? 
4. Can you really link shooting with atheism ? What just happened in Norway ? 
5. What about those recommended books ? Do you know that atheists are not all Marxists or communists ? 
6. You seem to forget all the Christian bullying in history (in southern France, in Spain (inquisition), in Ireland...) 
--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 20:04, 19 September 2011 (EDT)

= Move this to the Essay section ? =
What about moving this to the Essay: Atheist bullying for this is really NOT an encyclopedic entry.--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 20:04, 19 September 2011 (EDT)
= The phrase "atheist nerds" =
Could be considered to be bullying. Ironic in an article that portrays atheists as the bully. In fact a large percentage of the atheism articles could be considered so.--[[User:Tomqua|Tomqua]] 12:20, 19 October 2014 (EDT)

Irish Republican Army

2014-09-26T21:15:40Z

Tomqua: PIRA = "The IRA". Also OIRA, RIRA, CIRA and others.

[[Image:IRA3.jpg|right|thumb|200px]]

The '''Irish Republican Army''' or (IRA) is used to refer to many different, historically linked organisations; the Provisional IRA and the Official IRA. The former were formed in 1969 and have been more active since then with a particularly high profile from their military campaign. The Provisional IRA was formed as a reaction to perceived inactivity of the Official IRA, who were formed in 1919, but whose profile dropped since the end of the [[Irish Civil War]].

The Provisional IRA, also known as the '''The Irish Republican Army''', '''PIRA''', '''Provos''', or '''IRA''' (Óglaigh na hÉireann in Irish Gaelic) is a republican [[terrorist]] organisation that fought against the [[British]] in [[Northern Ireland]], claiming to represent the largely [[Catholic]] nationalist community in Northern Ireland.

The organisation is associated with the political party [[Sinn Féin]] (also known as Provisional Sinn Fein), although a direct association is officially denied. In 1981 an IRA prisoner serving a life sentence, Bobby Sands, was elected to the UK parliament while on Hunger Strike in the infamous [[Maze Prison]]. He died shortly after the election, but this was the beginning of a new strategy of Armalite and Ballot Box, combining politics with the armed struggle. The policy of violence was gradually undermined by increased faith in politics together with a number of peace initiatives and a loss of support for a violent program - the conciliatory handling of the situation first by [[John Major]] and later by [[Tony Blair]] is often held up as an example of an effective approach to a peace process.

Two small factions within the IRA broke away from the main organisation to protest its participation in the peace process: these are known as the Real IRA (RIRA), which carried out the Omagh bombing in 1998, the bloodiest single incident in the Troubles (29 people were killed), and the Continuity IRA (CIRA).

== History ==
===Origins===
The IRA was first formed in 1919 from members of the [[Irish Volunteers]], an armed group formed in 1913 to promote self government in Ireland, which was then part of the [[United Kingdom]], and in response to the formation of the armed [[Ulster Volunteers]], which sought to force exclusion of Ulster from any [[Home Rule]] agreement. While the British parliament passed the Government of Ireland Act in 1914, providing limited powers of self government to the Irish, its implementation was postponed by the outbreak of [[World War I]]. The majority of the approximately 100,000 Irish Volunteers accepted British promises that the act would go into force following the war, and many joined the British Army to fight. However, approximately 12,000 did not accept the delay. This group retained the name Irish Volunteers. They were largely controlled by the secretive [[Irish Republican Brotherhood]], or IRB, which had been seeking to instigate rebellion against British rule since the mid-19th century.

On April 24, 1916, the [[Easter Rising]] broke out when a significant portion of Volunteers seized Dublin's General Post Office (where their leader Padraig Pearse read a proclamation of Irish independence) and other points in Dublin. The limited nature of the rising is accounted for by splits in the leadership of the Volunteers and the issuing of orders countermanding the rising. The rebels managed to hold out for a week, but were defeated by British forces, who surrounded and isolated the rebel outposts and reduced them using artillery in many cases. The Rising had initially been unpopular among the Irish people, but this changed when the British executed 16 of its leaders following courts-martial in Dublin.

===Irish War of Independence===
In 1917, those who had participated in the Rising, as well as many who had been converted to their cause, organised the Irish Republican Army, dedicated to using force to attain independence. The [[Irish War of Independence|Anglo-Irish War]] began with the killing of two Royal Irish Constabulary men in January 1919. The IRA was organised into "flying columns" of 20-30 men who attacked British bases and ambushed military and police forces, as well as smaller units carrying out killings of police, army and government personnel. In July 1921, the IRA and the British agreed to a truce, which was followed by the negotiations for what became the [[Anglo-Irish Treaty]]. By the treaty provisions, Ireland was to become a dominion of the [[United Kingdom]], and the British were to retain possession of several ports on the Irish coastline. Additionally, members of the Irish Parliament (or Dáil Eireann) were required to swear an oath of loyalty to the British Crown. The treaty also led to the partition of the island, as six northern counties (Armagh, Antrim, Tyrone, Fermanagh, Down, Derry) opted to remain part of the UK and became the new state entity of [[Northern Ireland]].

===[[Irish Civil War]]===
The IRA leadership as well as its rank and file were deeply divided by the treaty. Pro-treaty members believed that it was a stepping stone to the independence they had sought, while anti-treaty members felt the treaty was a betrayal of the ideals that had motivated them to fight. These divisions ultimately led to a split in the IRA and civil war. The pro-treaty faction was reorganised as the Irish National Army, while the Anti-Treaty group retained the IRA label. The schism ultimately led to a bloody civil war in which brutal atrocities were comited by both sides. Although The war ended in 1923 with the victory of the National Army, the divisions it caused continue to polarize Irish politics to this day.

===Between the Wars===
During the period between the Irish Civil War and [[World War II]], the IRA was largely engaged in social issues, which they approached from an increasingly left-wing perspective. While a number of IRA men joined the Marxist [[International Brigades]] during the [[Spanish Civil War]], they also engaged in violent attacks against the authorities in both North and South. This approach was unpopular, largely due to the oposition of the [[Roman Catholic Church]] in Ireland. As time passed, IRA membership dwindled and many experienced veterans dropped out of the movement.

===World War II===
In 1938, however, the IRA began preparing plans to return to war with a bombing campaign in England. The IRA also sought the assistance of [[Nazi Germany]], but in the end the Abwehr provided little assistance.<ref>Tim Pat Coogan, "The IRA: A History," Chapter 9, "The IRA and the Nazis," pages 151-162.</ref> The IRA campaign had little effect, largely due to repressive measures taken by the British and Irish governments.

At the time of the Second World War, the [[Irish Free State]] was under the governance of [[Eamon de Valera]] and the Fianna Fail Party. Faced with an upsurge of terrorist violence, de Valera began interning IRA members without trial in the [[Curragh Camp]] in County Kildare. IRA men accused of capital crimes were tried by military tribunals and in some cases received the [[death penalty]].<ref> Tim Pat Coogan, "The IRA: A History," Chapter 8, "The Years of the Curragh," pages 143-150.</ref>

The most famous such incident of this era involved IRA Chief of Staff [[Charles Kerins]], who was hanged at [[Dublin]]'s Mountjoy Prison on December 1, 1944. He had been convicted by court-martial of the machine gun slaying of a Detective Sergeant [[Denis O'Brien]] of the [[Garda Siochana]]. Kerins is revered as a martyr by many militant Irish nationalists to this day.

===Border Campaign===
In the early 1950s the IRA began planning for a new campaign, which was intended to reunite [[Northern Ireland]] with the remainder of the island. The Border Campaign began in 1956 and lasted until 1962. IRA groups attacked military installations and attempted to disrupt the workings of the Northern Ireland state by damaging its infrastructure. The governments once again responded by introducing internment, which severely inhibited IRA operations. Ultimately the Border Campaign ended with an IRA admission that it did not have sufficient popular support to maintain its activities.

===The Troubles===
During the early 1960s, the IRA again came under socialist and Marxist influences. This led to a lack of emphasis on military aspects of the organisation. When violent rioting broke out in Belfast, the capital of Northern Ireland, in 1969, the IRA was ill-prepared to assist the Catholic/Nationalist community, to the extent that mocking jokes held that the abbreviation 'IRA' stood for "I Ran Away". The lack of focus on defence led to divisions within the IRA between those who favoured a movement focused on class issues and those who were motivated to defend their community by armed force, and by extension, use armed struggle to bring about a united Ireland. The organisation split along these lines in 1969, and the group focused on defence and armed struggle against the British became known as the Provisional IRA (PIRA). The remaining group was referred to as the Official IRA (OIRA).

OIRA engaged in some military activity during the early years of the Troubles before calling a ceasefire in 1972. They have since transformed into a political party, currently known as The Workers’ Party, contesting elections largely in the [[Republic of Ireland]]. PIRA, on the other hand, launched a 30-year campaign of violence against British control of Northern Ireland. PIRA violence was responsible for approximately 1,800 of the 3,000 deaths during the Troubles. The PIRA campaign came to an end with a ceasefire in 1997 as a result of the [[Irish Peace Process]], which culminated in the [[Belfast Agreement]], sometimes known as the [[Good Friday Agreement]], in 1998. In 2005, the IRA officially announced an end to its campaign and decommissioned much of its arms under international supervision.

The PIRA's terror campaign was largely funded from overseas. Two significant sources were the Libyan government and sympathisers in the United States. <ref>http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1563119.stm</ref><ref>http://members.lycos.co.uk/inac/myth.html</ref>

[[Noraid]] is an American fund-raising organisation claiming to support the peaceful campaign for a united Ireland. Set up at the beginning of the Troubles, it was often accused by the British, Irish and US governments of being a front for the supply of military hardware to the PIRA. Coupled with vocal support for Irish republicanism by certain US elected representatives and the refusal to extradite IRA suspects by members of the US judiciary, this caused many in the UK to suspect that Americans were anti-British and caused resentment of United States policy by many Britons.

IRA volunteers have since been caught helping [[FARC]] terrorists in [[Colombia]]<ref>http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1563119.stm</ref>.

[[Category:Terrorist Organizations]]
[[Category:Northern Ireland]]
[[Category:Irish History]]

==References==
<references/>

==Further reading==
* Tim Pat Coogan, ''The IRA: A History,'' Roberts Rhinehart Publishers, 1994.
* T. Ryle Dwyer, ''The Squad and the Intelligence Operations of [[Michael Collins]],'' Mercier Press, 2006.
* James Gleeson, ''Bloody Sunday: How Michael Collins' Agents Assassinated Britain's Secret Service in Dublin on November 21, 1920,'' London, 1962.
* Tom Mahon & James J. Gillogly, ''Decoding the IRA'', [[Mercier Press]], 2008.
{{Terrorism}}

Ian Paisley

2014-09-26T21:11:36Z

Tomqua: It's important to keep articles up to date.

[[Image:IanPaisley.gif|frame|Doctor the Reverend Ian Paisley MP]]

'''Dr Rev Ian Richard Kyle Paisley MP MLA''' (6 April 1926 – 12 September 2014) is a [[Northern Ireland|Northern Irish]] [[conservative]] [[politician]] and [[religious]] leader. Paisley uses the title "Doctor" on the basis of an honorary [[Doctor of Divinity]] degree awarded by [[Bob Jones University]].

He is the founder and head of the [[fundamentalism|fundamentalist]] [[Free Presbyterian Church]] and the head of the [[Democratic Unionist Party]]. He is a lifelong [[teetotaller]] who refers to alcohol as "the Devil's buttermilk", a [[creationism|creationist]], [[pro-life]], and a supporter of the criminalisation of [[homosexuality]], once opposing reform of laws relating to homosexuality with a campaign that he called "Save Ulster from Sodomy".<ref>McKittrick, David (24 May 2007). Ian Paisley: Can the Big Man say 'Yes'? ''The Independent''.</ref> Paisley always denied that Northern Irish [[Catholic]]s were poor because of religious discrimination. He said that they were poor because "they breed like [[rabbits]] and multiply like vermin".

In 1988, during a speech by [[Pope John Paul II]] to the [[European Parliament]], Paisley, who was a Member of the European Parliament, held up a poster reading "Pope John Paul II Antichrist" and called, "I renounce you as the Antichrist".<ref>MacDonald, Susan (10 February 1988). Paisley ejected for insulting Pope. ''The Times''.</ref><ref>Chrisafis, Angelique (16 September, 2004). The return of Dr. No. ''The Guardian''.</ref><ref>[http://www.ianpaisley.org/antichrist.asp The Pope is the Antichrist]</ref> In 1963 he held a rally to object to the lowering of the national flag at [[Belfast]] City Hall to mark the passing of [[Pope John XXIII]].<ref>McKittrick, David (24 May 2007). Ian Paisley: Can the Big Man say 'Yes'? ''The Independent''.</ref>

In 2007 Paisley became First Minister of the devolved Northern Ireland government, with [[Martin McGuiness]], a senior [[Sinn Fein]] leader and former [[IRA]] commander in [[Londonderry]], as his Deputy First Minister. Dr Paisley has announced his intention to step down as First Minister and DUP leader in May 2008.

==References==
<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT:Paisley, Ian}}

[[Category:British Politics]]
[[Category:Northern Ireland]]
[[Category:Fundamentalism]]
[[Category:Religion and Politics]]

Dinesh D'Souza

2014-09-25T22:53:10Z

Tomqua:

[[File:Dineshdsouza-full.jpg|thumb|150px|right]]
'''Dinesh D'Souza''' (b. 1961) is a [[conservative]] scholar, author, blogger and commentator. He is the former President of [[The King's College]] in New York.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.tkc.edu/abouttkc/president_pressrelease.html|title=Dinesh D'Souza Named President of The King's College in NYC|date=Aug. 23, 2010|accessdate=Aug. 30, 2012}}</ref>

In college, he was a prominent writer with ''The [[Dartmouth]] Review'', a conservative publication. He is a former editor of ''[[Policy Review]]'', a conservative journal. He was a fellow at the Hoover Institute at [[Stanford University]].

A Christian immigrant from [[India]] who wrote a book entitled ''What's So Great About Christianity,'' D'Souza wrote a piece entitled "Thank God for America" on his blog on November 21, 2007.<ref>http://news.aol.com/newsbloggers/bloggers/dinesh-dsouza</ref> Today he is mostly involved with exposing the contradictions and hypocrisy of [[atheists]], and the censorship of Christian leadership in the modern world.

He regularly participates in debates with [[New Atheism|New Atheist]]s. These have included [[Christopher Hitchens]] (6 times), [[Daniel Dennett]] (once), [[Peter Singer]] (twice), [[Dan Barker]] (twice), and [[Michael Shermer]] (twice).

In September 2010, D'Souza published ''Roots of Obama's Rage'', which explores possible influences that Barack Obama, Sr may have had on his son, the President. D'Souza asserts:
<blockquote>The most powerful country in the world is being governed according to the dreams of a Luo tribesman of the 1950s—a polygamist who abandoned his wives, drank himself into stupors, and bounced around on two iron legs (after his real legs had to be amputated because of a car crash caused by his drunk driving). This philandering, inebriated African socialist, who raged against the world for denying him the realization of his anti-colonial ambitions, is now setting the nation’s agenda through the reincarnation of his dreams in his son.<ref>http://www.amazon.com/Roots-Obamas-Rage-Dinesh-DSouza/dp/1596986255</ref></blockquote>
The book did not receive wide attention until it was made into a motion picture entitled, "[[2016: Obama's America]]" which was released during the 2012 Presidential campaign. The movie has become a box office success, on track to garner the second-highest box office receipts for a documentary in history.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/tv-movies/2016-obama-america-fact-checking-conservative-author-dinesh-ouza-film-article-1.1146143|title=‘2016: Obama’s America’: Fact checking conservative author Dinesh D’Souza’s film|work=NY Daily News|date=August 28, 2012|accessdate=August 30, 2012}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://abcnews.go.com/nightline|title='2016': Anti-Obama Film's Giant Success|date=August 29, 2012|accessdate=August 30, 2012}}</ref>
== Criminal conviction ==
In September 2014 D'Souza was convicted of making $20,000 in illegal campaign contributions and sentenced to 5 years probation.[http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/nyc-crime/dinesh-souza-5-years-probation-campaign-donations-article-1.1949769]
== See also ==
*[[Richard Dawkins and Dinesh D'Souza]]
*[[What's So Great About America]]

== References ==
<references/>

==External link==
*[http://www.ygodinstitute.com/ God debates]

{{DEFAULTSORT:D'Souza, Dinesh}}

[[Category:Authors]]
[[Category:Conservatives]]
[[Category:Christians]]
[[Category:India]]

Talk:Conservapedia proven right

2013-07-08T03:35:32Z

Tomqua:

The two rows about gold seem repetitive. How about combining into only one row?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:23, 20 November 2011 (EST)
:::It is a lot of information plus Conservapedia mentioned gold and precious metals a lot. But at the same time reportedly positively about having a broad commodity strategy if possible. I think it would make a very long single entry. I will look at it though. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:18, 20 November 2011 (EST)
::::::I will combine them. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]]

== Neutrinos and the speed of light ==

The article claims that Conservapedia's prediction about the theory of General Relativity being wrong was proven by Neutrinos travelling faster that the speed of light. It has recently been found that this is in fact false, the accuracy of the measurements was affected by a loose fibre optic cable <ref>http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2012/02/official-word-on-superluminal-ne.html?ref=hp</ref>. Shall I remove this claim?

:The issue remains unresolved, rather than the claim by the scientists having been proven false. Feel free to edit accordingly.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:54, 29 February 2012 (EST)

::Thanks for the help Andy. Sorry, I'm new so I thought I would ask. Either way, the statement is invalid as there is reasonable concern that the results are inaccurate. I will delete it for now as it will save face for Conservapedia. But if the anomaly is still present (as some physicists believe it will be), then we can alwpays re-insert it.--[[User:JeremyK|JeremyK]] 11:23, 29 February 2012 (EST)

== Cristie and Palin ==

If Conservapedia thought those two weren't likely nominees why is [[Presidential Election 2012|Palin still listed as one]] and [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Presidential_Election_2012&diff=938676&oldid=937791 Christie was only removed as a potential nominee only two days ago]?

:The way that mathematical probabilities work, nobody, including Palin, has an absolute zero probability of being nominated. An absolute zero probability for an uncertainty is, by definition, impossible.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:05, 22 November 2011 (EST)

== Newt Gingrich ==

*Conservapedia statement: "Newt Gingrich is the most likely to win the Republican nomination for President"
*Ranking of Potential Republican Candidates by Likelihood of Winning Nomination as per the linked article right now: #1 - Mitt Romney
So Conservapedia is proven right for a prediction it's not making anymore? Oh, let me guess: If Mitt Romney wins the nomination after all, you will again claim that Conservapedia is proven right by linking to the first version where he happened to be at the top?

Make up your mind - either actually promote Newt as your top choice or strike this out. It's not much of a prediction when you're basically playing "Heads, I win! Tails, you lose!" with the wiki revision system. ;) --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 17:41, 22 November 2011 (EST)
:I see that the "most likely" list at least reflects this "prediction" again. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 17:12, 27 November 2011 (EST)

== Britain, atheism and the World Cup ==

*Conservapedia statement: "Atheistic Britain would embarrass itself in the World Cup"
*Liberal claptrap in response: "Liberal denial shouts down any observation of the correlation between atheism and underachievement"
*Result: "'England's performance at South Africa 2010 was officially their worst at a World Cup finals, according to Fifa.'"
Uh... your logic isn't sound. You roughly guessed a soccer result correctly, but that doesn't prove anything about a supposed correlation between atheism and underachievement.

Let's look at the actual statistics and results:
*Both England and the religious USA dropped out in the Top 16 round.
*The Top 3 spots of the World Cup went to Spain, the Netherlands and Germany (in that order).
*[http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_atheist.html This] site lists somewhat recent atheism/agnostic/nonbeliever rates per country:
**Spain: 15 - 24%
**Netherlands: 39 - 44%
**Germany: 41 - 49%
**Britain (as a yardstick for "atheistic country"): 31 - 44%
**USA (as a yardstick for a religious country): 3 - 9%
What was that? Correlation between atheism and underachieving? Citing the World Cup 2010 as an example? Not quite. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:08, 22 November 2011 (EST)

:Obviously nobody said atheism was the ''only'' factor. Of course there are other factors in fielding a successul soccer team, such as the level of interest in the sport.

:Looking at British soccer performance over time isolates the effect of atheism. As atheism has grown in Britain, it's ability to compete in the World Cup has fallen to pathetically weak levels. Atheism causes underachievement.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:09, 22 November 2011 (EST)
::England's past World Cup ratings:
::*1950: '''8th'''
::*1954: '''6th'''
::*1958: 11th
::*1962: '''8th'''
::*1966: 1st
::*1970: '''8th'''
::*1974: not qualified
::*1978: not qualified
::*1982: '''6th'''
::*1986: '''8th'''
::*1990: '''4th'''
::*1994: not qualified
::*1998: 9th
::*2002: '''6th'''
::*2006: '''7th'''
::*2010: 13th
::Whenever England qualified for a World Cup, it ended up in the Top 16. And I highlighted (in bold) the times in which England made it at least into the quarterfinals. Fallen to pathetically weak levels? During the last three World Cups, England twice had one of the best eight teams on the planet. Or are you claiming that there was a sudden atheism spike between 2006 and 2010?
::Also, the FIFA World Rankings currently rank England as #7, and the [http://www.fifa.com/worldranking/rankingtools/compareteams.html#g=m&t1=ENG&t2=ENG&t3=ENG&t4=ENG&dRange=4&fm=8&fy=1993&tm=11&ty=2011 trend there] isn't exactly indicating growing failure.
::So let's do this right. What are your sources for the claim that "atheism has grown in Britain"? How much during what time period? And then we can see how that compares to the the World Cup and the World Ranking.
::And you claim that atheism causes underachievement, but completely fail to address how the atheism in other countries somehow isn't causing underachievement there. You can't make a claim and then only consider a single country with "high" levels of atheism. How do you explain that the best three teams during the last World Cup have high atheism rates? Why aren't highly religious countries doing better?
::Sorry, but I don't see this going anywhere. You considered only a single data point (the performance of a single team during a single World Cup) to make a claim that doesn't seem to fit the moment you expand the scope at all. You called a single team's performance during a single event correctly, but that doesn't make your reasoning right. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 20:32, 22 November 2011 (EST)

== Earthquakes ==

I'm surprised that this is ''still'' doing its rounds: It's wrong.

I don't even have to make a longwinded speech; just look at [[Talk:Main Page/Archive index/102#Severe_earthquakes_double_every_40_years.3F|this]] discussion and also at [[Talk:Counterexamples to an Old Earth#Major_earthquakes_are_doubling_every_40_years.3F|this]] one. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:13, 22 November 2011 (EST)

== Jon Stewart Curse ==
Since the "prediction" was made, Stewart hasn't actually been in any movies. Hosting the Academy Awards was not movie acting. If you want to count "has appeared in front of a camera" as movie acting, then The Daily Show also counts, and it does [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1394561/The-force-Jon-Stewart-Daily-Shows-ratings-higher-FOX-News.html very] well. In addition, this prediction was originally made by somebody who was banned as a vandal. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 17:12, 27 November 2011 (EST)

==What is the point of this article ?==
It just look like boasting. And I shall remind you that ''"As it is, you boast in your arrogance. All such boasting is evil."'' - James 4:16 --[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 23:10, 8 February 2012 (EST)

:''Neither do men light a candle and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick, and it giveth light unto all that are in the house.'' - Matthew 5:15. Your move!--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 11:45, 29 February 2012 (EST)
::Admittedly, the title is a bit on the nose. I'm inclined to change it to "Conservapedia prescience" or "Presience of conservative insight." Or simply "Conservative Insight." [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 12:38, 29 February 2012 (EST)

::(edit conflict) Well put, CPalmer. And if "accountability" had been a term known to the [[King James Version]] translators, then it would be in the English translations of the Bible too. It's very important to circle back and check what was right and what was wrong.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:40, 29 February 2012 (EST)

:::Douglas, I'm [[Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness|open-minded about this]], but don't think the alternative titles would be an improvement.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:41, 29 February 2012 (EST)

== Gay penguin ==

Isn't it possible (and indeed more likely) that the penguin was never gay in the first place? I can't really picture one penguin (peacefully or otherwise) convincing another penguin to change from his ways. There are no penguin therapy support groups. Either way, Conservapedia is right about the gay animal myth (either he's an ex-homosexual or he never was one in the first place). But I do think that possibility is worth mentioning. I'm not sure how to word it though. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 22:44, 9 February 2012 (EST)
:::I think the idea of a homosexual animal is wrongheaded and that the homosexual animal notion is a myth. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:12, 29 March 2012 (EDT)

== References ==

<references/>

== Stalking Horse ==

Don't we need some evidence of intent before deciding that Santorum was a stalking horse for Romney? Was Nader a stalking horse for Bush in 2000? He certainly did more to hurt Gore than Santorum did to hurt Gingrich --[[User:JustinD|JustinD]] 20:57, 10 April 2012 (EDT)

:I have an [[open mind]] about whether Santorum was a [[stalking horse]] for Romney. But what other plausible explanation is there for the abrupt pull-out by Santorum at this time, stranding so many [[conservatives]] who had rallied behind him?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:42, 10 April 2012 (EDT)
::Winning less than half as many delegates as Romney. A sick kid at home. Nothing near the financial resources that Romney has. Poll leads in his home state that weren't incredibly solid. [[User:DVMRoberts|DVMRoberts]] 22:03, 10 April 2012 (EDT)
:::Just speculating, but I'd say the potential loss in Pennsylvania had to play a big part in his timing. It's been clear for a while now that he didn't really have much of a chance of turning things around this time out, but the longer he could stay competitive, the more influence he'd have going forward. A loss in his home state would have cost him a lot of credibility he's gained these last few months. It's also not implausible that Romney made some pseudo-promises behind the scenes that now allow him to cancel what was going to be a huge ad buy in Pennsylvania. At any rate, if you/we/Conservapedia still have an open mind about Santorum's status as a stalking horse, is it really an appropriate time to count this as an example of [[Conservapedia proven right]]?[[User:JustinD|JustinD]] 00:40, 11 April 2012 (EDT)
:::: Yeah, it seems silly to proclaim [[Conservapedia proven right]] about something that isn't even clear is true yet. And if Conservapedia did indeed think Santorum was just a stalking horse for Romney, why has it portrayed Santorum as the conservative alternative to Romney for the past few months? Why was this prediction from two years ago not brought up weeks ago? --[[User:BradleyS|BradleyS]] 01:56, 11 April 2012 (EDT)
:::::Although this will unfortunately make me sound like a jerk, this really isn't the place for those questions. Can we focus on trying to improve this particular article? I do appreciate the pro not-yet-a-stalking-horse sentiment though. --[[User:JustinD|JustinD]] 02:09, 11 April 2012 (EDT)
:::::: I think those questions are relevant. Conservapedia is claiming have been proven right about X when it doesn't appear to have actually believed in X and X hasn't been shown to be true. That's about as far away as 'proven right' as you can be. Hence an improvement of this article would be to remove the entry. --[[User:BradleyS|BradleyS]] 12:01, 11 April 2012 (EDT)
:::::::You're right. Sorry about that and carry on. I guess I was more tired than I thought last night. --[[User:JustinD|JustinD]] 12:50, 11 April 2012 (EDT)

::::::::It was asked "why has it portrayed Santorum as the conservative alternative to Romney for the past few months?" - Answer: because, obviously, voters '''''perceived''''' "Santorum as the [[conservative]] alternative to Romney." The strength of the votes for that conservative alternative was significant.

::::::::What Santorum's own intentions have been are, of course, another matter. The sbrupt timing of his pull-out seemed to have been coordinated with the Romney campaign, or at least to help him. Gingrich didn't pull out.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:32, 11 April 2012 (EDT)
:::::::::Exactly. I completely agree. This strongly hints that Santorum might not be as conservative as Romney really is (perhaps the plan was something like this; Romney would appeal to moderates while Santorum distracted the easily amused Liberals as Romney gained support. Now with his "shield" down Liberals have spent all their ammo on Santorum so Romney can advance as the real, true Conservative? When you think about it it's brilliant; the Republicans appear to compromise with the more simpleminded voters when in reality the Conservative train steams ahead with more power than ever! [[User:Insel|Insel]] 00:01, 19 April 2012 (EDT)

== Another case of selective reading.... ==

That's bordering the ridiculous: Aschlafly, have you read your source beyond the headline? Surely you want to differ between man-made quakes and natural ones! And a quote from the article: "''America's Natural Gas Alliance, which represents major energy companies involved in natural gas fracking, said it was difficult to conclude anything based on an unpublished abstract. ''" So perhaps you want to wait for the scientific article until you declare triumph - or will this be another article you quote, but don't read? [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 14:05, 22 April 2012 (EDT)

:You seem to be focusing on the [[hearsay]] in the article, which of course would be [[inadmissible]] in court for its lack of reliability. The article is cite here for its admissible factual content, which is that large earthquakes are increasing.

:Please see [[hearsay society]] for an enlightening discussion of the key distinction.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:13, 22 April 2012 (EDT)

::I think AugustO's point is that although Conservapedia is technically correct in saying the number of earthquakes is increasing, there is a very real possibility that the increase is due to recent human activity. If this is the case, the increase in earthquakes is not a logical counterexample to an old Earth. Even though the increase in earthquakes has not been conclusively linked to fracking, ignoring this possibility and claiming the counterexample to be definitively true is an example of [[deliberate ignorance]] or [[closed-mindedness]]. --[[User:Toadaron|AaronT]] 15:16, 22 April 2012 (EDT)

:::Previously there was denial that earthquakes are increasing. Conservapedia was correct about that, and there's no denying that now, right? As to why, that's a separate issue, but the claim that mankind is causing this is implausible.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:21, 22 April 2012 (EDT)

::::To answer your question, yes, you are correct. Whether this item belongs in this article and whether it belongs in [[Counterexamples to an Old Earth]] are two seperate issues. --[[User:Toadaron|AaronT]] 15:31, 22 April 2012 (EDT)

:::::Aschlafly would be correct if his claim were that ''the number of magnitude 3 and greater earthquakes increases dramatically in an area that includes Arkansas, Colorado, Oklahoma, New Mexico and Texas''.
:::::But his claim is ''Large earthquakes are increasing in frequency.'' That's quite a difference!
:::::And calling ''the claim that mankind is causing this'' [...] ''implausible'' seems to be a sign of severe closed-mindedness! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:17, 22 April 2012 (EDT)

== Predicted Increase in Premature Graying ==

Mr. Schlafly, I know from the [[Andy Schlafly|article about you]] that you have a background in law and engineering, two fields that highly value logic, evidence, and truth. So you must understand that one nonspecific example of one case of premature graying at one point in time - or even the few example given in the [[Counterexample to an Old Earth]] page - does not nearly offer rigorous proof that premature graying is increasing. (Not to mention the almost nonexistent relationship between premature graying and the age of the Earth.) --[[User:Randall7|Randall7]] 23:19, 28 April 2012 (EDT)

:The example is specific, and one case can prove a theory. The solitary example of [[Christ]] rising from the dead does prove several theories in [[Christianity]].

:With young people having gray hair with increasing frequency, this does suggest that the slope of man's developmental path is a much sharper incline (downward) than Old Earth believers claim.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:46, 28 April 2012 (EDT)

::Of course you are correct that there are some theories that can be proven true with a single example. But this is certainly not one of them. To prove your claim is true, you need to present a substantial amount of data from the past as well as from the present. At the risk of being called part of the [[Hearsay society]], I am going to suggest you present some credible references. (Also, I called the example on this page nonspecific because the "Result" column does not give the person's name or a reference.) --[[User:Randall7|Randall7]] 00:25, 29 April 2012 (EDT)

:::Good point about the need for specificity. The link is on the front page but this entry should identify the person. I've corrected that.

:::Your request for references is unpersuasive, as evidence is abundant in daily life. Would anyone ask [[Jesus]] for a reference after telling the parable of the [[Prodigal Son]]?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:31, 29 April 2012 (EDT)

::::I appreciate your point - I doubt anyone asked Jesus for references during his numerous speeches/sermons. But even though it may be obvious to you that the age of onset of gray hair is rapidly decreasing, it may not be obvious to many readers of Conservapedia, so providing substantial evidence would be useful to these readers. --[[User:Randall7|Randall7]] 00:41, 29 April 2012 (EDT)
::::::No, but you're not Jesus. You need to provide citations to factual claims when asked. You should do it before being asked really. I know you know this. [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 10:02, 29 April 2012 (EDT)
And now we see the "Hearsay Society" defense (...or, as I call it, the "Go Away, You Bother Me" defense) in action. Look Randall, look Nate: I've been coming to this website since 2007. Here's how it works. As stated above, one of the people who never have to provide evidence for their claims is Jesus Christ Himself. The other is Andy Schlafly. People are going gray earlier. Just roll with it, 'cause you ain't gonna get any more than "It's self-evident" or "One case proves the theory." Just kick back and enjoy the fun. [[User:Sylvain|Sylvain]] 10:05, 29 April 2012 (EDT)
:Nonsense. Mr. Schlafly uses citations all the time. He just needs to cite it his point. [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 10:11, 29 April 2012 (EDT)
::Mr. Schlafly supported a user who created a template expressly designed to do away with the need for citations. Thus the invention of the notion of the "Hearsay Society." Mr. Schlafly just now on this very page is arguing that, like Jesus Christ, his assertions on this matter are obvious and require no corroborating data. Mr. Schlafly re-wrote the Bible when that particular "data-set," if you would, did not correspond to his own beliefs, and has used articles about events that happened billions of years ago in order to advance the cause of a young creation. Mr. Schlafly has what one might call an interesting approach to the idea of how evidence might support an argument. [[User:Sylvain|Sylvain]] 10:16, 29 April 2012 (EDT)

:::The [[Hearsay Society]] is the ultimate haven for anyone who denies [[logic]] and, in this case, the increasingly premature graying apparent all around in daily life. [[Pharisees]] used the same escape hatch to avoid accepting the compelling parables and indisputable reasoning.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:19, 29 April 2012 (EDT)
::::Not it's not apparent at all because none of us is 6000 years old, assuming YEC is why you're saying this it seems to me that arguing without citing authority where necessary is the ultimate escape hatch for anyone who denies logic because arguments are built on supported factual premises. We have no idea how grey people were at age 30 before the invention of photography unless you've got some citations. And you're still not Jesus. This grey hair stuff is not remotely similar to Jesus's sayings and you know it. You're also getting hearsay wrong. It has nothing to do with citing authority. [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 10:38, 29 April 2012 (EDT)
ASchlafly, most people who are asked for a bit of evidence to back up a controversial claim don't retreat to constructing societal models out of whole cloth and then charging their interlocutors with being members of that made-up society. Nor do they compare their own arguments to those of the Lord. [[User:Sylvain|Sylvain]] 10:56, 29 April 2012 (EDT)
:::::Wait a minute here Mr. Schlafly - are you suggesting I'm part of this "hearsay society" and that by asking you for a citation to show that people are prematurely graying I'm "continuing the don't-think-for-yourself tradition started by the Pharisees"? [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 12:33, 29 April 2012 (EDT)
:::::::That's exactly what he's doing. I'm curious as to why you would find this surprising. [[User:Sylvain|Sylvain]] 12:57, 29 April 2012 (EDT)
:Jesus was infalible. You, Aschlafly, are not. He did not need to provide citations but unless you are now comparing yourself to Jesus you, Aschlafly as a falible human, do. [[User:Davidspencer|Davidspencer]] 11:56, 29 April 2012 (EDT)
:Also - but please correct me if I'm wrong - Jesus did not tell the Parable of the Prodigal Son as a true story, but, well, as a parable. --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 12:59, 29 April 2012 (EDT)

::Jesus told the [[parable]] as a true story about the good side of human nature. It was not merely fiction. Notice how no one asked Him to provide a citation that human nature was really like this. Instead, listeners of the [[Prodigal Son]] then and now think for themselves, and recognize its truth without resorting to a demand for [[hearsay]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:07, 29 April 2012 (EDT)
:::So you feel yourself to be on a level with Jesus? You feel that because he, the infaliable Son of God, was not asked for a citation then you should not be? Less than 300 years ago you would have been burnt at the stake for making such a claim. You should really reconsider your hubris, and then ask for forgivness for your pride. And then provide a citation - or withdraw your claim. [[User:Davidspencer|Davidspencer]] 13:31, 29 April 2012 (EDT)
::::But ASchlafly, you yourself said that [[parable| a parable is "a fictional narrative."]] Is it a true story or fiction? It cannot be both. [[User:Sylvain|Sylvain]] 13:34, 29 April 2012 (EDT)

:::::Sylvain, do you think the correct answer to a word problem in math is "merely fiction"? I don't think so.

:::::David, I don't think Christians burned anyone at the stake for making observations about premature graying, without citation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:58, 29 April 2012 (EDT)
For those of you who argue that Andy Schlafly is not infalible and needs to supply sources, keep in mind that by your own argument you need to supply sources that Andy is not infalible if you wish to state it. I doubt you can. [[User:JacobJ|JacobJ]] 14:16, 29 April 2012 (EDT)
:::::::Edit Conflict: No, but they very well might have burned someone who claimed that his pronouncements were as clear and obvious as those of the Lord. And I'm not sure you can equate word problems with empirical statements about the observable world. I could write a word problem about a train taking 20 minutes to go from Baltimore to Chicago, and for the sake of the word problem, that's fine. It's not the same as saying "a train take 20 minutes to go from Baltimore to Chicago, and only a Pharisee would question my word," which is essentially what you are doing here. [[User:Sylvain|Sylvain]]

::::::::So is the correct answer to a word problem "merely fiction," or not? And, by the way, Christians did not burn people at the stake as much as [[public schools]] might lead people to believe. Opponents of Christianity have been far more violent throughout history.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:25, 29 April 2012 (EDT)
Let's leave the questions of public schools and burning at the stake aside for the purposes of this discussion. The issue here is whether or not a constructed word problem is the same as an empirical claim about the world. I could construct a word problem where the correct answer is that the train took 20 minutes to get from Baltimore to Chicago. That says nothing about an actual train. You are making a claim about grey hair and when asked for evidence, your position seems to be "Jesus didn't need to provide evidence for his parables, and neither do I for this claim." This implies, to the casual observer, that you think that your claims have the same authority as those of the Lord. Do you not see how the reader might raise his eyebrows at such a position? [[User:Sylvain|Sylvain]] 14:31, 29 April 2012 (EDT)

:OK, suppose it wasn't Jesus who told the [[Prodigal Son]], but someone else. Would anyone ask for references to confirm how the story illustrates a truth about life?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:28, 29 April 2012 (EDT)

::Someone might ask not for references to confirm that the story tells a truth about life, but for references that the events mentioned in the story actually happened. However, whether or not the story happened or not doesn't change the lesson implied in the story. I get that. But you're not simply telling a story to impart a larger lesson. You are making an empirical claim about the world, having to do with the occurrence of gray hairs. The only evidence you seem to give is "Just like Jesus, I don't need any proof." But Jesus wasn't talking about an actual son and an actual father in the parable--he was telling a story. He could have made it all up in order to illustrate the lesson; that doesn't make the lesson any less valid. Story-telling is not making an empirical claim. Surely you can see the difference. Either 1. You do not understand the difference between metaphor and observable reality, or 2. You believe that your word is as unquestionable as that of Jesus Christ Himself. [[User:Sylvain|Sylvain]] 15:52, 29 April 2012 (EDT)

===A related issue===
A man making a claim with an appeal to Scripture is one thing. A man making a claim with an appeal to Scripture who led a project to re-write the Bible because parts of it did not conform to his political ideology is quite another. Then the claims of the man become self-fulfilling. Step 1: "Here is a claim about the world." Step 2: "For verification of this claim, please consult the version of the Bible that I wrote that reinforces the vision of the world that I am claiming in Step 1." Step 3: "If you have a problem with that, remember that Jesus--at least the version of him that I describe in my Bible--said things without reference to anything, and I can too. Because, like the claims of Jesus (the one in the Bible I rewrote), my claims are obvious." Does that not strike you as problematic? [[User:Sylvain|Sylvain]] 16:01, 29 April 2012 (EDT)

:The [[Conservative Bible Project]] has always been dedicated to translating the original meaning of the [[Bible]] more precisely, free of [[liberal bias]] that creeps into other translations.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:58, 29 April 2012 (EDT)
::Which explains why so many noted conservative theologians have given the rewritten Bible that you produced high praises, and why so many conservative churches and denominations are using it instead of those other, more liberal versions, I guess. [[User:Sylvain|Sylvain]] 00:07, 30 April 2012 (EDT)

:::I think the first statement would amount to more reliance on [[hearsay]] concerning what "conservative" theologians supposedly said. And, by the way, the [[Conservative Bible Project]] was never a "rewritten Bible."--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:51, 30 April 2012 (EDT)

{{nohearsay}}
What is this?
{| class="collapsible collapsed" style="border:1px dashed Gainsboro;margin:+.1em;width:20%"
|-
! style="border:1px solid lightgray;margin:+.1em;text-align:center;padding:+.2em" | [[user:Brenden|Brenden]].
|-
| style="padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
*[[Special:Contributions/Brenden|Contribs]]
*[[user talk:Brenden|talk]]
*[[Special:Log&user=Brenden|log]]
|} 15:50, 29 April 2012 (EDT)
:It's a template that can be used to answer or pre-empt calls for references on pages where they aren't needed. There's also <nowiki>{{nohearsaysection}}</nowiki> for use on specific sections of pages.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:21, 30 April 2012 (EDT)

Andy, let's assume, just for the sake of argument, that there is a scientist, a well-respected man and a well-known conservative (so no liberal bias involved), who has spent his career investigating premature greying in society, collecting data on the current incidence of premature greying and studying historic records on premature greying. Let us further assume - purely hypothetically - that this man has found that premature greying has not increased since, say, the time of Jesus up to now. If we don't know this man personally, should we take his results seriously or should we dismiss them and all reference to them as hearsay? What if we know him personally, maybe even as a close friend, and know him to be an honest, conservative man? Should we trust him and take his results seriously, even if they contradict what we believe to be true? At what point does information obtained from someone else stop being hearsay? You will surely say that he will not find contradicting results, but my question is not about premature greying (incidentally, I'm in my mid-40s and have been completely grey for at least ten years now). What I really want to understand is the concept of hearsay, its limits and the connection to openmindedness. --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 11:36, 30 April 2012 (EDT)
::I'm sorry, I meant what's the point of this. References aren't bad, they prevent people from inventing their own facts.[[User:Brenden|brenden]] 00:21, 1 May 2012 (EDT)

:::When a demand for references is used to shout down logic or obvious truths available to everyone, then that is bad. When references are used to repeat hearsay contained in the references, then that is also bad. Silly demands for references or authority were used to interfere with the logic and obvious truths in the [[Gospels]], which of course contain no references.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:44, 1 May 2012 (EDT)
'::good point. However, when used correctly, references help people navigate the facts and content

::::I agree, but too often people demand references as a way of sidestepping clear logic or obvious truths, while accepting worthless references in other situations if the references reinforce their views.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:04, 1 May 2012 (EDT)
:::::So, I understand that it some situations, references just aren't readily available. Maybe because an insight is either so obvious that no one's bothered to discuss it or so novel that no one's thought to discuss it. But in other situations, they are available. Lots of smart people have studied lots of obscure things. In situations where references are available, is it appropriate to use them? If I, for example, found a study investigating the age at which people go grey, would that be worth considering? --[[User:JustinD|JustinD]] 03:07, 1 May 2012 (EDT)
::::::Yes, of course references are sometimes - often - wholly appropriate and very useful. They are used extensively on Conservapedia. But Wikipedia has gone beyond that and suffers from a kind of reference-mania - dismissing ''any'' statement that has no reference, and conversely often allowing any old garbage on the grounds that it does have a (questionable) citation.
:::::: See the comics [http://xkcd.com/978/ here] and [http://xkcd.com/906/ here] for two humorous commentaries on the problems caused by Wikipedia's policies (though note that other comics on that site may not be so educational - in fact the second link should come with a mild warning).--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 04:18, 1 May 2012 (EDT)
:::::::I understand, I think, your criticism of how references are used elsewhere. I'm more interested in trying to understand how you/Andy/Conservapedia want them to be used here. How do I know when it is appropriate to ask for a reference? If I ask for one and am told it is not necessary, by what criteria will we (or even better, objective others) determine who is correct? If I have a reference on some topic, how will I know whether or not it is appropriate to include in an article? --[[User:JustinD|JustinD]] 17:31, 1 May 2012 (EDT)

== Opportunities for improvement ==

I recently stumbled upon this article after a link to it was featured on the main page. After reviewing the article and it's subsequent talk page discussion, I believe I have found a few areas that could stand some attention.

# '''Ambiguousness of predictions''' - Many of the predictions are vague and offer little in the way of an objectively measurable outcome. To be effective, predictions should be as specific as possible, with indisputable results.
# '''Links to predictions''' - Very few of the list items reference the article (and exact edit) on Conservapedia where the actual prediction was made. Critics of the project could easily claim that predictions were being made after-the-fact once the final outcome was known. Citing the specific edit where the prediction was made would preemptively silence such criticism.
# '''"Liberal claptrap" responses''' - Like the predictions themselves, only a minuscule amount of the alleged liberal uproar is actually documented.
# '''The results''' - Surprisingly many of the results do not link to any external source, where the reader can review the material and reach their own conclusion about the accuracy of the prediction.

--[[User:DonnyC|DonnyC]] 15:06, 10 January 2013 (EST)

:You're welcome to add more references, but the predictions and outcomes are so clear and well-known that even more references are hardly necessary.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:10, 15 January 2013 (EST)

== Item on Armstrong is somewhat ridiculous ==

Lance Armstrong was stripped from his titles in August 2012, so adding him in September 2012 to the list of overrated sport-starts doesn't take a visionary... --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:46, 15 January 2013 (EST)

:May seem obvious now, but as you can see from the reference there was objection in September 2012 to including him in the [[Overrated Sports Stars]] entry.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:02, 15 January 2013 (EST)
::I remember this well, as I reinserted the entry. So there were two editors ([[User:Wonders]] and [[User:AugustO]]) who thought that he was overrated, and other Conservapedians disagreed: you have enough convenient predictions to cover any outcome.... --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 13:58, 15 January 2013 (EST)

:::No, because the deniers were not "Conservapedians" in many meaningful sense. Conservapedians said he was overrated, and non-Conservapedians disagreed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:08, 15 January 2013 (EST)

*the article on [[Lance Armstrong]] was created in '''Sep 2007'''. The first reference to drug abuse was inserted in '''Jan 2012'''
*In '''Sep 2007''' wikipedia's [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lance_Armstrong&oldid=156195303#Allegations_of_drug_use article on Armstrong] already had a long section named '''Allegations of drug use'''
So even if you claim that Conservapedia was proven right, it came quite late to the party... --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 14:34, 15 January 2013 (EST)
::::"Predicting" that Armstrong is overrated in September is a bit like "predicting" that Obama would win the election ... on the 7th of November. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 15:12, 15 January 2013 (EST)

:::::[[Liberal denial]] about Armstrong continued well past September. There are probably atheist websites today that still list him as being great.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:47, 15 January 2013 (EST)

:::::''[[Liberal denial]] about Armstrong continued well past September.'' Evidence?
:::::''There are probably atheist websites today that still list him as being great.'' Link?
:::::There are those thinks called ''facts''... --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 17:57, 15 January 2013 (EST)

::::::Liberal companies including a beer company and Nike continued to endorse Armstrong for months after September. Now, do you need a citation for that too???--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:59, 15 January 2013 (EST)

:::::::Just citations which show that [[Anheuser Bush]] and [[Nike]] are liberal companies... --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 19:20, 15 January 2013 (EST)

::::::::Oh please ... is it really necessary to provide a citation that Nike and a beer company are liberal???--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:30, 15 January 2013 (EST)

:::::::::Yes. In my country, beer companies belong to the most conservative companies imaginable. And [[Anheuser Bush]] doesn't strike me as a kind of micro-brewery.
:::::::::--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 19:32, 15 January 2013 (EST)
::::::::::Both Nike and Budd dropped him, presumably after looking in detail at their legal options. Besides I cannot imagine how you would even begin to argue that Nike is a "liberal" company - they are one of the biggest exploiters of cheap labour in the world; they are famous for having extremely lax safety standards for employees, and being in favour of countries that reduce them as much as possible. I'm not familiar with the beer company, but given their size I doubt they would meet any sensible definition of liberal. As for "I'm sure there are atheist websites who endorse him still"; that is a meaningless statement unless you actually cite one. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 21:07, 15 January 2013 (EST)
::::::::It's difficult for me to imagine any corporation as "liberal." When the primary motivator is profit, groups and individuals tend to go conservative. --[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 00:41, 16 January 2013 (EST)

:::::::::Big corporations have never been friendly to the conservative movement. Except for the union issue, big corporations tend to support liberals.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:54, 16 January 2013 (EST)
::::::::::I think the opposite is the case (take, for example, the membership of ALEC). [[User:GregG|GregG]] 01:14, 16 January 2013 (EST)
:::::::::::(EC)And tax policy, and health and safety, and welfare, and discrimination laws, and minimum wages, and healthcare, and political finance reform and etc etc ad nauseum. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 01:18, 16 January 2013 (EST)
Rupert Murdock a liberal? [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 00:58, 16 January 2013 (EST)

: Rupert Murdoch is whatever will further his business interests. He has at various times supported both sides of politics when doing so helps his various business interests. [[User:Dvergne|Dvergne]] 01:13, 16 January 2013 (EST)

:: ''The Australian, "The Times of London", "The Wall Street Journal"'', those rubbish tabloids in Britain. New York and in the various state capitals in Australia - "liberal" papers, Dvergne? [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 01:38, 16 January 2013 (EST)

This is like shooting fish in a barrel guys - just follow the money. In 2012, Anheuser Busch donated [https://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.php?strID=C00034488 55% of its PAC money to Republicans, 45% to Democrats]. Since 2003, it has donated [http://www.followthemoney.org/database/topcontributor.phtml?u=207 45% of its money to Republicans, and 38% to Democrats]. In 2012, Nike donated [http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.php?strID=C00142786 63% to Republicans, 37% to Democrats]. Since 2004, Nike has given [http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.php?strID=C00142786 43% to Republicans, 40% to Democrats]. Although neither are 'overwhelmingly GOP', like, for example, [http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.php?strID=C00236489 Koch Industries] (98% Republican, 2% Democrat), if the Nike and Anheuser Busch numbers were election results, they would be called a "landslide" for Republicans. The vast majority of corporations will be found to be like this - it's in their interest to support less regulation, lower business taxes, etc, and they almost all line up to support conservatives. [[User:Wonders|Wonders]] 12:27, 18 January 2013 (EST)

:The donations by corporations to Republicans are typically to '''''liberal''''' Republicans, some of whom are more liberal than many Democrats.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:30, 18 January 2013 (EST)
::But Anheuser-Busch is a member of ALEC, at least according to [http://www.commoncause.org/atf/cf/%7BFB3C17E2-CDD1-4DF6-92BE-BD4429893665%7D/cied_35-day_mailing_2011_annual_meeting%20New%20Orleans.pdf this source]. I don't think they would belong to ALEC if they were liberal. [[User:GregG|GregG]] 20:13, 18 January 2013 (EST)
:::Not to mention that Anheuser-Busch donated to Andy's favorite candidate [[Todd Akin]]. --[[User:DonnyC|DonnyC]] 20:32, 18 January 2013 (EST)

== Relay ==

I read [http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2013/02/130208-super-bowl-blackout-cause/ the National Geographic article], and it appears that the argument is whether the relay mechanically failed or whether it was improperly set. Nothing suggests that relay or its use was not at fault, and certainly nothing suggests that energy rationing of any sort contributed to the outage. Please fix this. Thanks, [[User:GregG|GregG]] 21:25, 9 February 2013 (EST)

:A low setting on a relay (or fuse) would result from guidelines based on rationing energy.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:05, 9 February 2013 (EST)
::Relays almost never fail, and stadiums almost never go dark. You can't prove that a relay didn't cause a blackout by saying that relays almost never fail, just as liberals can't prove that God didn't create the world because worlds almost never are created. --[[User:Praymond|Praymond]] 11:30, 27 May 2013 (EDT)
::There are several other, more plausible reasons. It could have been to prevent larger-scale blackouts due to interruption in the power coming into the stadium. It could have been to reduce the risk of fire (the same kind of reason why circuit breakers in your home trip). Or, the setting may have been too low simply due to human error. The details should be sorted out soon through investigation. [[User:GregG|GregG]] 22:31, 9 February 2013 (EST)

== Media bullying ==

A simple google search shows that the term "media bullying" was already in use before Conservapedia purportedly coined it. [[User:Onestone|Onestone]] 09:48, 10 March 2013 (EDT)

:Were prior uses elsewhere of the term "[[media bullying]]" in the same rich meaning as the usage here?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:24, 10 March 2013 (EDT)
::You claim (and literally wrote) that Conservapedia coined the ''term''. However, judging from your reply, what you probably intended to write was that Conservapedia merely coined the highly particular ''usage'' of the term. That is an essential difference. [[User:Onestone|Onestone]] 09:13, 11 March 2013 (EDT)

== Explained that abortion increases the risk of breast cancer ==

The article cited as proof that abortion increases the risk of breast cancer mentions nothing about abortions, nothing about ''Roe V Wade'' being connected with the increase of cancer in young women. Quote: "Why more young women would be presenting with tumors that have already spread to bone, brain, lungs, or other distant sites ''isn't clear, they noted. Rising obesity rates, changes in alcohol and tobacco use, and genetics are possible causes, according to Dr. Thomas Julian, director of surgical oncology at Allegheny General Hospital in Pittsburgh."
''

If you want to find a connection, or have some proof, I recommend adding it, but this is not that proof. Doesn't even come close. It just so happens that the studies started a few years after ''Roe V Wade'' was decided. There is not even a casual connection between the two mentioned in this article. [[User:Vyselink|Vyselink]] 15:03, 26 March 2013 (EDT)

:Newspaper articles often do have the problem of [[liberal denial]], but are cited here for the facts they contain.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:09, 12 May 2013 (EDT)
::The article's fact's also don't support the conclusion I'm afraid, which ultimately doesn't make a good case for this thesis. It states:
::The steepest uptick occurred in the most recent era from 2000-2009, during which incidence rose 3.6 percent per year.
::Keeping in mind that the study is about women in the 25-39 age group, the group around 2000 (before the uptick) are not pre-abortion. Even the oldest (age 39) member of the least cancerous cohort (in 2000) would have been age 12 when Roe v. Wade was decided in January 1973. In other words, even the early, healthy, group in the study were of child-bearing age in the abort era. As much as I'd like for this study to support this case, I don't see how it does. [[User:MelH|MelH]] 15:32, 2 July 2013 (EDT)

Here is a link to a reputable source that more than confirms the hypothesis.http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1288955/Abortion-triple-risk-breast-cancer.html
--[[User:Tomqua|Tomqua]] 16:02, 2 July 2013 (EDT)

==Tamerlan Tsarnaev==
Does anyone else feel like this might be jumping the gun a little?? "Tamerlan Tsarnaev '''probably''' murdered his friend on a 9/11 anniversary, and DNA '''likely''' proves it." The words "probably" and "likely" are not synonyms for "proven right"... especially not when the [[Conservapedia proven right#cite note-56|only citation provided]] is a link back to the [[Main Page|same statement]] (without any external source at the time of this posting) on the main page of this very website. I honestly haven't followed the murder case at all and have no idea what is going on with it, but the information provided here is far from convincing to me. [[User:Fnarrow|Fnarrow]] 00:24, 12 May 2013 (EDT)
:I stand corrected, there is now a [http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2013/0511/Tsarnaev-2011-murders-Boston-bombing-brothers-also-could-be-linked-to-earlier-deaths source] provided on the main page... however, it very clearly states that the evidence only points to them being in the area on the day of the murder and circumstantial at best. Like I said above, I haven't been following the case so I don't know all the details, I just feel it's a little premature to claim CP was proven right on this. [[User:Fnarrow|Fnarrow]] 00:33, 12 May 2013 (EDT)
::I don't see any "liberal bias" or right-vs-left in any of this. All Americans believe that the Boston Marathon bombing, carjacking, police shootouts etc. were horrible behavior. It is an opportunity for the nation to pull together to respond to this. We all want the police and the criminal justice system to work effectively to identify all related crimes and any possible co-conspirators. America demands a complete and professional investigation. Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 01:13, 12 May 2013 (EDT)

:::Within days the DNA evidence from the [[9/11]] triple-murder was compared with the DNA of Tamerlan Tsarnaev, and they likely matched. (If they didn't match, then authorities would surely say so.) '''''Yet [[liberal denial]] about the DNA match continues'''''.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:57, 12 May 2013 (EDT)

==Proposed Enhancements==
It seems my recent edit to this page was more controversial than I intended. I wanted to apologize to the project for the problems that I caused--it was never my intent to remove substantive material. I believe the lay out of the chart can be enhanced, and the following is my proposed methodology. I will not endeavor to make these changes without approval. Each of these phases would be enacted in separate edits with significant time in between them to facilitate review.
 -First: Standardization of the dates. Currently, there is no standard. Some dates are seasons while others are ranges, and those with specific dates are displayed with no specific style. My proposed standardization is as follows--for dates: (Full Month) (Day) (Year). for those that are currently seasons or ranges, I will search for the first relevant edit and use that as the date. I will provide a citation.
 -Second: Citation of Claims. After completing phase one, my intent is to revisit the table and provide internal citations to all predication made.
 -Third: Citation of Results. After completing phase two, my intent is to revisit the table and provide citations to all results.
 -Fourth: Sortability of Table. After completing phase three, my intent is to edit the formatting to create a sort-able table.

I believe these enhancements will improve the visual appeal of the table. Further, I believe these enhancements embody an important principle: credit where credit is due. Conservapedia has often made bold predictions and has been proven right time and time again. Although it is improper to brag, we ought to take pride in, and document, the project's success.

Again, my apologies for any complications my previous edits caused. [[User:WilliamWB|WilliamWB]] 11:22, 23 May 2013 (EDT)

:I'm fine with the addition of citations, and with standardizing the form for dates is good too. I don't see how sortability will be a problem. The reason I reverted prior edits to this entry was that content changed. For example, and I don't know if this was your edit, but a correct statement about Manning throwing interceptions in the final key game was changed to incorrectly state that Tebow had done so.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:22, 23 May 2013 (EDT)

::As I work through adding dates and internal citations, I have noticed that the archive page of In The News ends in December 2011. Were the months January-December 2012 archived? I ask because searching the archives is simpler than my current method of searching through revision histories. Thanks, [[User:WilliamWB|WilliamWB]] 09:06, 27 May 2013 (EDT)

:::I think 2012 is archived here: [http://www.conservapedia.com/Main_Page/Previous_Conservapedia_Breaking_News].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:23, 27 May 2013 (EDT)

::::Ah, great! I was looking at the general archives page here: [http://www.conservapedia.com/Main_Page/Previous_Conservapedia_Breaking_News/Archives] Thanks, [[User:WilliamWB|WilliamWB]] 11:55, 27 May 2013 (EDT)

==Variability of the Speed of Light==

I suggest deleting the point about the speed of light being variable. The article sited does not in fact say this. It states that the speed of light is constant but that space is not the complete vacuum previously thought. Thus the speed of light is slightly slower traveling through space as it is in any non vacuum. [[User:CenterK|CenterK]] 01:53, 1 July 2013 (EDT)

== The expert, number two seed, Andy Murray won the men's tournament; defeating a field of "best of publics". ==

What does this have to do with a page documenting Conservapedia's correct predictions? Should it not be on a page, if it exists, of incorrect predictions? [[User:EddyJ|EddyJ]] 14:33, 7 July 2013 (EDT)

:I don't see what the victory by the #2 seed in the men's tourney has to do with this. No one is claiming that the experts '''''always''''' lose and underachieve, but they often fail - rougly 50% of the time judging by the [[Wimbledon]] results.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:17, 7 July 2013 (EDT)
::Exactly. Thanks for the insight. [[User:EddyJ|EddyJ]] 15:22, 7 July 2013 (EDT)
:::What insight? To suggest that ''anyone'' who gets as far as Wimbledon isn't an "expert" is vacuous at best. The "best of the public" are playing tennis in their gardens or at the local club. The only thing they do at Wimbledon is watch. Every single player there is by any reasonable definition an expert. --[[User:ECornwell|ECornwell]] 17:21, 7 July 2013 (EDT)

::::Why stop there? Why not say that the "public" are people who are playing tennis for the first time. Then we can be sure the public won't win.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:07, 7 July 2013 (EDT)
:ok so who isn't public? Just players who have won before?--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 18:31, 7 July 2013 (EDT)

::"Experts" are people like tenured college professors, a select few whom liberals claim know more than anyone else. For athletes, "experts" are the ones who get the big endorsements and hype. The public are those who try just as hard as the experts, but lack the recognition by liberals, sometimes due to political bias.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:59, 7 July 2013 (EDT)
:::You're insane.--[[User:ErinTH|ErinTH]] 19:17, 7 July 2013 (EDT)

:::I get what Mr Schlafly is saying, but I think I would label the concept differently. The public in this sense are those who are not well known within the general population but only within their own sport. Serena Williams is well known throughout the world. I would guess their are those who know who she is but unaware she is a tennis player whilst Marion Bartoli is not well known outside the tennis community and her home country. So maybe she is public-plus or expert-minus as she has made over 8 million dollars during her career--[[User:Tomqua|Tomqua]] 23:35, 7 July 2013 (EDT)

Edward J. Snowden

2013-07-06T22:51:30Z

Tomqua: Added D.O.B, removed age(in case not updated in future)

[[File:Snowden HK.jpg|thumb|250px|Hong Kong Rally to Support Snowden, Garden Road, Central, [[Hong Kong]], June 15, 2013.]]
'''Edward J. Snowden''' (Born June 21, 1983) is an American [[IT]] specialist, [[video game]] player[http://www.viralread.com/2013/06/15/who-is-edward-snowden-background-on-nsa-leaker-emerges/] and a former employee of defense contractor Booz Allen Hamilton (a contractor for the [[National Security Agency]]). In June 2013 Snowden embarrassed [[Barack Obama]] by revealing the mass domestic surveillance program known as "[[PRISM]],". This is an internet snooping program run by the National Security Agency, as constituted by former [[George W. Bush|President George W. Bush]]. He explained to shocked Americans that the National Security Agency had in effect built a dossier on every man, woman and child in the [[United States of America]], and probably beyond borders,

The revelations made Snowden Obama's nemesis, and Obama has neglected most other issues, notably the downfall of the [[Muslim Brotherhood]] government in [[Egypt]] in his pursuit of the young man. At one point, Obama had [[Evo Morales]], the president of [[Bolivia]] detained in an inept attempt to intercept Snowden.

Snowden told the British left wing newspaper [[The Guardian]]:

* "I will be satisfied if the federation of secret law, unequal pardon and irresistible executive powers that rule the world that I love are revealed even for an instant."<ref> [http://www.humanevents.com/2013/06/10/meet-the-nsa-leaker/ Meet the NSA leaker], ''[[Human Events]]''</ref>

The liberal ''Washington Post'' quotes him as saying:

* "Allowing the U.S. government to intimidate its people with threats of retaliation for revealing wrongdoing is contrary to the public interest."<ref> [http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/intelligence-leaders-push-back-on-leakers-media/2013/06/09/fff80160-d122-11e2-a73e-826d299ff459_story.html Edward Snowden comes forward as source of NSA leaks], ''Washington Post''</ref>

After leaking the information in question, Snowden stayed in Hong Kong for a while; he then left China and went to Russia en route to seeking asylum in [[Ecuador]]. Snowden was apparently travelling on a passport that had been revoked. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/06/23/obama-administration-confirms-talking-to-hong-kong-about-snowden/ "US revokes NSA leaker Edward Snowden's passport, as he reportedly seeks asylum in Ecuador," Fox News, 23 June 2013]</ref> The [[Wikileaks]] organization has helped Snowden to stay ahead of Obama's grasp. <ref>[http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2013/06/23/with-wikileaks-help-nsa-leaker-snowden-seeks-asylum-in-ecuador-via-moscow/ "With WikiLeaks' Help, NSA Leaker Snowden Seeks Asylum In Ecuador Via Moscow," Forbes, 23 June 2013]</ref> The president of Ecuador [[Rafael Correa]] explained that Snowden cannot go to Ecuador.<ref>http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/news/2013/06/30/ecuador-president-says-snowden-cannot-leave-moscow/</ref>
As of July 6, 2013, Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega and Venezuealan President Nicolas Maduro had offered asylum to Snowden.<ref>http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-23201774/</ref>

==Political reaction==
[[File:Snowden hero.jpg|thumb|Activist in New York's Union Square, June 10, 2013.]]
[[John Boehner]] called Snowden a "traitor" who committed a "giant violation of the law" that put Americans at risk.<ref> [http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jun/11/boehner-describes-nsa-leaker-traitor/#ixzz2WBqMieaD Boehner describes NSA leaker as 'traitor']</ref> Numerous other high ranking officials have hawkishly demanded his extradition from the [[People's Republic of China]]. From China, however, reactions have been supportive, with calls by politicians, and various civil liberties organizations, to implore [[Beijing]] to block extradition attempts, on grounds of national security.

<blockquote>
While many blasted Snowden, Republican Senator [[Rand Paul]] of Kentucky, a member of the Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee and one of the chamber's most conservative members, said, "it's going to be an open question how this young man is judged."
"If he goes to an independent third country like Iceland and if he refuses to talk to any sort of formal government about this, I think there's a chance that he'll be seen as an advocate of privacy." [http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-rt-us-usa-security-washingtonbre95m08u-20130623,0,2374212.story]
</blockquote>

==Notes==
<references />

==See also==
*[[Bradley Manning]]
*[[Julian Assange]]
*[[Warrantless domestic surveillance]]
*[[Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court]]

[[Category:Espionage]]

Edward J. Snowden

2013-07-06T20:02:49Z

Tomqua:

[[File:Snowden HK.jpg|thumb|250px|Hong Kong Rally to Support Snowden, Garden Road, Central, [[Hong Kong]], June 15, 2013.]]
'''Edward J. Snowden''' (b. ca. 1983) is a 30-year-old American [[IT]] specialist, [[video game]] player[http://www.viralread.com/2013/06/15/who-is-edward-snowden-background-on-nsa-leaker-emerges/] and a former employee of defense contractor Booz Allen Hamilton (a contractor for the [[National Security Agency]]). In June 2013 Snowden embarrassed [[Barack Obama]] by revealing the mass domestic surveillance program known as "[[PRISM]],". This is an internet snooping program run by the National Security Agency, as constituted by former [[George W. Bush|President George W. Bush]]. He explained to shocked Americans that the National Security Agency had in effect built a dossier on every man, woman and child in the [[United States of America]], and probably beyond borders,

The revelations made Snowden Obama's nemesis, and Obama has neglected most other issues, notably the downfall of the [[Muslim Brotherhood]] government in [[Egypt]] in his pursuit of the young man. At one point, Obama had [[Evo Morales]], the president of [[Bolivia]] detained in an inept attempt to intercept Snowden.

Snowden told the British left wing newspaper [[The Guardian]]:

* "I will be satisfied if the federation of secret law, unequal pardon and irresistible executive powers that rule the world that I love are revealed even for an instant."<ref> [http://www.humanevents.com/2013/06/10/meet-the-nsa-leaker/ Meet the NSA leaker], ''[[Human Events]]''</ref>

The liberal ''Washington Post'' quotes him as saying:

* "Allowing the U.S. government to intimidate its people with threats of retaliation for revealing wrongdoing is contrary to the public interest."<ref> [http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/intelligence-leaders-push-back-on-leakers-media/2013/06/09/fff80160-d122-11e2-a73e-826d299ff459_story.html Edward Snowden comes forward as source of NSA leaks], ''Washington Post''</ref>

After leaking the information in question, Snowden stayed in Hong Kong for a while; he then left China and went to Russia en route to seeking asylum in [[Ecuador]]. Snowden was apparently travelling on a passport that had been revoked. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/06/23/obama-administration-confirms-talking-to-hong-kong-about-snowden/ "US revokes NSA leaker Edward Snowden's passport, as he reportedly seeks asylum in Ecuador," Fox News, 23 June 2013]</ref> The [[Wikileaks]] organization has helped Snowden to stay ahead of Obama's grasp. <ref>[http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2013/06/23/with-wikileaks-help-nsa-leaker-snowden-seeks-asylum-in-ecuador-via-moscow/ "With WikiLeaks' Help, NSA Leaker Snowden Seeks Asylum In Ecuador Via Moscow," Forbes, 23 June 2013]</ref> The president of Ecuador [[Rafael Correa]] explained that Snowden cannot go to Ecuador.<ref>http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/news/2013/06/30/ecuador-president-says-snowden-cannot-leave-moscow/</ref>
As of July 6, 2013, Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega and Venezuealan President Nicolas Maduro had offered asylum to Snowden.<ref>http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-23201774/</ref>

==Political reaction==
[[File:Snowden hero.jpg|thumb|Activist in New York's Union Square, June 10, 2013.]]
[[John Boehner]] called Snowden a "traitor" who committed a "giant violation of the law" that put Americans at risk.<ref> [http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jun/11/boehner-describes-nsa-leaker-traitor/#ixzz2WBqMieaD Boehner describes NSA leaker as 'traitor']</ref> Numerous other high ranking officials have hawkishly demanded his extradition from the [[People's Republic of China]]. From China, however, reactions have been supportive, with calls by politicians, and various civil liberties organizations, to implore [[Beijing]] to block extradition attempts, on grounds of national security.

<blockquote>
While many blasted Snowden, Republican Senator [[Rand Paul]] of Kentucky, a member of the Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee and one of the chamber's most conservative members, said, "it's going to be an open question how this young man is judged."
"If he goes to an independent third country like Iceland and if he refuses to talk to any sort of formal government about this, I think there's a chance that he'll be seen as an advocate of privacy." [http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-rt-us-usa-security-washingtonbre95m08u-20130623,0,2374212.story]
</blockquote>

==Notes==
<references />

==See also==
*[[Bradley Manning]]
*[[Julian Assange]]
*[[Warrantless domestic surveillance]]
*[[Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court]]

[[Category:Espionage]]

Edward J. Snowden

2013-07-06T20:02:21Z

Tomqua: updated age

[[File:Snowden HK.jpg|thumb|250px|Hong Kong Rally to Support Snowden, Garden Road, Central, [[Hong Kong]], June 15, 2013.]]
'''Edward J. Snowden''' (b. ca. 1984) is a 30-year-old American [[IT]] specialist, [[video game]] player[http://www.viralread.com/2013/06/15/who-is-edward-snowden-background-on-nsa-leaker-emerges/] and a former employee of defense contractor Booz Allen Hamilton (a contractor for the [[National Security Agency]]). In June 2013 Snowden embarrassed [[Barack Obama]] by revealing the mass domestic surveillance program known as "[[PRISM]],". This is an internet snooping program run by the National Security Agency, as constituted by former [[George W. Bush|President George W. Bush]]. He explained to shocked Americans that the National Security Agency had in effect built a dossier on every man, woman and child in the [[United States of America]], and probably beyond borders,

The revelations made Snowden Obama's nemesis, and Obama has neglected most other issues, notably the downfall of the [[Muslim Brotherhood]] government in [[Egypt]] in his pursuit of the young man. At one point, Obama had [[Evo Morales]], the president of [[Bolivia]] detained in an inept attempt to intercept Snowden.

Snowden told the British left wing newspaper [[The Guardian]]:

* "I will be satisfied if the federation of secret law, unequal pardon and irresistible executive powers that rule the world that I love are revealed even for an instant."<ref> [http://www.humanevents.com/2013/06/10/meet-the-nsa-leaker/ Meet the NSA leaker], ''[[Human Events]]''</ref>

The liberal ''Washington Post'' quotes him as saying:

* "Allowing the U.S. government to intimidate its people with threats of retaliation for revealing wrongdoing is contrary to the public interest."<ref> [http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/intelligence-leaders-push-back-on-leakers-media/2013/06/09/fff80160-d122-11e2-a73e-826d299ff459_story.html Edward Snowden comes forward as source of NSA leaks], ''Washington Post''</ref>

After leaking the information in question, Snowden stayed in Hong Kong for a while; he then left China and went to Russia en route to seeking asylum in [[Ecuador]]. Snowden was apparently travelling on a passport that had been revoked. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/06/23/obama-administration-confirms-talking-to-hong-kong-about-snowden/ "US revokes NSA leaker Edward Snowden's passport, as he reportedly seeks asylum in Ecuador," Fox News, 23 June 2013]</ref> The [[Wikileaks]] organization has helped Snowden to stay ahead of Obama's grasp. <ref>[http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2013/06/23/with-wikileaks-help-nsa-leaker-snowden-seeks-asylum-in-ecuador-via-moscow/ "With WikiLeaks' Help, NSA Leaker Snowden Seeks Asylum In Ecuador Via Moscow," Forbes, 23 June 2013]</ref> The president of Ecuador [[Rafael Correa]] explained that Snowden cannot go to Ecuador.<ref>http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/news/2013/06/30/ecuador-president-says-snowden-cannot-leave-moscow/</ref>
As of July 6, 2013, Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega and Venezuealan President Nicolas Maduro had offered asylum to Snowden.<ref>http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-23201774/</ref>

==Political reaction==
[[File:Snowden hero.jpg|thumb|Activist in New York's Union Square, June 10, 2013.]]
[[John Boehner]] called Snowden a "traitor" who committed a "giant violation of the law" that put Americans at risk.<ref> [http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jun/11/boehner-describes-nsa-leaker-traitor/#ixzz2WBqMieaD Boehner describes NSA leaker as 'traitor']</ref> Numerous other high ranking officials have hawkishly demanded his extradition from the [[People's Republic of China]]. From China, however, reactions have been supportive, with calls by politicians, and various civil liberties organizations, to implore [[Beijing]] to block extradition attempts, on grounds of national security.

<blockquote>
While many blasted Snowden, Republican Senator [[Rand Paul]] of Kentucky, a member of the Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee and one of the chamber's most conservative members, said, "it's going to be an open question how this young man is judged."
"If he goes to an independent third country like Iceland and if he refuses to talk to any sort of formal government about this, I think there's a chance that he'll be seen as an advocate of privacy." [http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-rt-us-usa-security-washingtonbre95m08u-20130623,0,2374212.story]
</blockquote>

==Notes==
<references />

==See also==
*[[Bradley Manning]]
*[[Julian Assange]]
*[[Warrantless domestic surveillance]]
*[[Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court]]

[[Category:Espionage]]

Talk:Conservapedia proven right

2013-07-02T20:02:18Z

Tomqua: /* Explained that abortion increases the risk of breast cancer */

Counterexamples to Relativity

2013-06-30T22:33:44Z

Tomqua:

The [[theory of relativity]] is a mathematical system that allows no exceptions. It is heavily promoted by [[liberals]] who like its encouragement of [[moral relativism|relativism]] and its tendency to mislead people in how they view the world.<ref group="note">See, e.g., historian Paul Johnson's book about the 20th century, and the article written by liberal law professor Laurence Tribe as allegedly assisted by [[Barack Obama]].</ref> The falsehood of Relativity is also useful to liberals in pulling impressionable students away from the truth of the [[Bible]]. Here is a list of 47 counterexamples: any one of them shows that the theory is incorrect.
#Computer simulations based on the theory of relativity predict far more [[black holes]] than are observed.<ref>"The ratio of the mass of black holes in galaxy centers to the rest of the matter in galaxies is larger in the simulations than in the real universe." [http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=biggest-black-hole-blast-ever Scientific American November 28, 2012]</ref> Indeed, it is debatable whether [[black holes]] exist at all.
#The [[orbital eccentricity]] of the [[Moon]]'s orbit is increasing, contrary to what Relativity predicts.<ref>http://arxiv.org/abs/1102.0212</ref>
#The [[Pioneer anomaly]].
#The [[Sun]] is a '''''perfect''''' sphere - "the solar flattening is ... too small to agree with that predicted from its surface rotation."<ref>http://www.tgdaily.com/space-features/65491-why-is-the-sun-so-round</ref>
#[[Quantum entanglement]] near the [[event horizon]] of a [[black hole]] -- with one particle of the pair on one side, and other particle of the pair on the other side -- defies the Theory of Relativity.<ref>https://simonsfoundation.org/features/science-news/mathematics-and-physical-science/alice-and-bob-meet-the-wall-of-fire/</ref>
#Subatomic particles with mass have a speed observed to be as fast as the speed of light ("we are 100% sure that the speed of light is the speed of neutrinos"<ref>http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17364682</ref>), which contradicts Relativity because the [[Lorentz factor]] is then infinite.<ref>http://www.hindustantimes.com/Roll-over-Einstein-Law-of-physics-challenged/Article1-749189.aspx - note that a similar observation of faster-than-light speeds was also made in 2007 (with a larger margin of error).</ref><ref>http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/18/us-science-neutrinos-light-idUSTRE7AH0T720111118</ref> [[Neutrino]]s were observed to travel at the speed of light by an independent experiment also: "Their neutrinos traveled at precisely the speed of light, not faster or slower."<ref>http://junkscience.com/2012/03/21/no-you-still-cant-go-faster-than-light/</ref>
#Anomalies in the locations of spacecraft that have flown by [[Earth]] ("flybys"). During the gravity assists from Earth, both the Galileo spacecraft and the Near Earth Asteroid Rendezvous (NEAR) spacecraft experienced a change in velocity different than that predicted by General Relativity.<ref>http://trs-new.jpl.nasa.gov/dspace/bitstream/2014/19088/1/98-0296.pdf</ref><ref>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23410705/</ref>
#Spiral galaxies confound Relativity, and unseen, nonexistent "[[dark matter]]" has been invented to try to retrofit observations to the theory.<ref>http://arxiv.org/abs/1105.1873</ref> "Dark matter mysteriously missing around sun. Theories say neighborhood should be filled with it, but new study shows otherwise."<ref>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/47101905</ref>
#The acceleration in the expansion of the [[universe]] confounds Relativity, and unseen "[[dark energy]]" has been invented to try to retrofit observations to the theory.
#Increasingly precise measurements of the advance of the [[perihelion]] of [[Mercury]] show a shift greater than predicted by Relativity, well beyond the margin of error.<ref group="note">In a complicated or contrived series of calculations that most physics majors cannot duplicate even after learning them, the theory of general relativity's fundamental formula, <math>G_{\mu\nu} = 8 \pi K T_{\mu\nu}\,</math>, was conformed to match Mercury's then-observed [[precession]] of 5600.0 arc-seconds per century. Subsequently, however, more sophisticated technology has measured a different value of this precession (5599.7 arc-seconds per century, with a margin of error of only 0.01), and leading promoters of Relativity (such as Professor Clifford Will) have omitted this in listing tests confirming Relativity.</ref>
#Despite wasting millions of taxpayer dollars searching for gravitational waves predicted by the theory, no direct observation of [[gravity]] [[wave]]s has occurred.<ref>http://arxiv.org/abs/1102.3781</ref> ''Sound like [[global warming]]?''
#The discontinuity in momentum as velocity approaches "c" for infinitesimal mass, compared to the momentum of light.
#The logical problem of a force which is applied at a right angle to the velocity of a relativistic mass - does this act on the rest mass or the relativistic mass?
#The observed lack of curvature in overall space.<ref group="note">If space were curved, one would never expect the universe as a whole to be almost precisely flat. Yet it is.</ref>
#The universe shortly after its creation, when [[Quantum mechanics|quantum]] effects dominated and contradicted Relativity.
#The [[action-at-a-distance]] of [[quantum entanglement]].<ref group="note">Quantum entanglement has not yet communicated information faster than the speed of light, but has already exhibited action faster than the speed of light.</ref>
#The [[action-at-a-distance]] by [[Jesus]], described in [[John 1-7 (Translated)|John 4:46-54]], [[Matthew 10-19 (Translated)|Matthew 15:28]], and [[Matthew 20-28 (Translated)|Matthew 27:51]].
#The failure to discover [[gravitons]], despite spending hundreds of millions in taxpayer money in searching. While these tax dollars were not necessarily "wasted", the lack of results indicate that scientists need to revisit their hypothesis.
#Newly observed data reveal that the fine-structure constant, α (alpha), actually varies throughout the universe, demonstrating that all inertial frames of reference do '''not''' experience identical laws of physics as claimed by Relativity.<ref group="note">For a report on the data, see a paper submitted in 2010 by John Webb and Julian King of the University of new South Wales, Australia, to the ''Physical Review Letters''.</ref>
#The double star "W13" weighs "40 times as much as the sun—more than enough to form a [[black hole]]. So why is it not a black hole? The only explanation [a leading scientist] can think of ... does not make astrophysical sense."<ref>http://www.economist.com/node/17035953</ref>
#The inability of the theory to lead to other insights, contrary to every verified theory of physics.
#The change in mass over time of standard kilograms preserved under ideal conditions.<ref>[[Mystery:Why Is the Kilogram Losing Weight?]]</ref>
#The uniformity in temperature throughout the universe.<ref>http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6092-speed-of-light-may-have-changed-recently.html ("A varying speed of light contradicts Einstein's theory of relativity, and would undermine much of traditional physics. But some physicists believe it would elegantly explain puzzling cosmological phenomena such as the nearly uniform temperature of the universe.")</ref>
#"According to Einstein’s view on the universe, space-time should be smooth and continuous" but observations instead show "inexplicable static" greater than "all artificial sources of" possible background noise.<ref>[http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/Cool-Astronomy/2010/1025/Is-the-universe-a-big-hologram-This-device-could-find-out. Hunt for gravitational waves discovers unexpected data instead].</ref>
#"The snag is that in quantum mechanics, time retains its Newtonian aloofness, providing the stage against which matter dances but never being affected by its presence. These two [QM and Relativity] conceptions of time don’t gel."<ref>http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=splitting-time-from-space</ref>
#The theory predicts [[wormholes]] just as it predicts [[black holes]], but wormholes violate causality and permit absurd time travel.<ref>http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v61/i13/p1446_1 . The popular science press promotes black holes to a far greater extent than wormholes.</ref>
#The theory predicts natural formation of highly ordered (and thus low entropy) black holes despite the increase in [[entropy]] required by the [[Second Law of Thermodynamics]].<ref group="note">Contrived explanations have been suggested for this dilemma, such as Stephen Hawking proposing that the entropy of matter in a black hole is somehow stored in the surface area of its event horizon to be released back into its surroundings as the black hole decays by radiation, known as "Hawking radiation."</ref>
#Data from the [[PSR B1913 16|PSR B1913+16]] increasingly diverge from predictions of the [[General Theory of Relativity]] such that, despite a Nobel Prize in Physics being awarded for early work on this pulsar, no data at all have been released about it for over five years.
#The lack of useful devices developed based on any insights provided by the theory; no lives have been saved or helped, and the theory has not led to other useful theories and may have interfered with scientific progress.<ref group="note">Contrary to the claims of Relativists, the GPS system has never been based on Relativity. The Time Service Department, U.S. Navy, observed that "The Operational Control System (OCS) of the Global Positioning System (GPS) does not include the rigorous transformations between coordinate systems that Einstein’s general theory of relativity would seem to require" in part because "the effects of relativity, where they are different from the effects predicted by classical mechanics and electromagnetic theory, are too small to matter – less than one centimeter, for users on or near the earth.”</ref> This stands in stark contrast with every verified theory of science.
#Relativity requires different values for the [[inertia]] of a moving object: in its direction of motion, and perpendicular to that direction. This contradicts the logical principle that the laws of physics are the same in all directions.
#Relativity requires that anything traveling at the [[speed of light]] must have mass zero, so it must have [[momentum]] zero. But the laws of [[electrodynamics]] require that light have nonzero momentum.
#Unlike most well-tested fundamental physical theories, the theory of relativity violates conditions of a conservative field. Path independence, for example, is lacking under the theory of relativity, as in the "twin paradox" whereby the age of each twin under the theory is dependent on the path he traveled.<ref group="note">In defense of the theory, it is noted that it mandates conservation of the matter-stress-energy tensor (the only way to get ''real'' conservation, since matter and energy are interchangeable.) This follows from the "contracted Bianchi identity." [http://www.mth.uct.ac.za/omei/gr/chap6/node14.html] Also, the curl of the "gravitational field vector" is exactly zero in the absence of moving sources, due to symmetries of [[Riemann]]'s tensor. It follows, from [[Stokes' Theorem]], that the gravitational field is conservative and has a potential function. Energy is conserved.</ref>
#The Ehrenfest Paradox: Consider a spinning hoop, where the [[tangent]]ial [[velocity]] is near the speed of light. In this case, the circumference (<math>2 \pi R</math>) is length-contracted. However, since <math>R</math> is always perpendicular to the motion, it is not contracted. This leads to an apparent paradox: does the radius of the accelerating hoop equal <math>R</math>, or is it less than <math>R</math>?
#Based on Relativity, Einstein predicted in 1905 that clocks at the Earth's equator would be slower than clocks at the North Pole, due to different velocities; in fact, all clocks at sea level measure time at the same rate, and Relativists made new assumptions about the Earth's shape to justify this contradiction of the theory; they also make the implausible claim that relativistic effects from gravitation precisely offset the effects from differences in velocity.<ref>http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v227/n5255/abs/227270a0.html</ref>
#The Twin Paradox: Consider twins who are separated with one traveling at a very high speed such that his "clock" (age) slows down, so that when he returns he has a younger age than the twin; this violates Relativity because ''both'' twins should expect the other to be younger, if motion is relative. Einstein himself admitted that this contradicts Relativity.<ref group="note">Einstein attempted to explain the paradox based on the acceleration that one twin uniquely undergoes, but the length of travel can simply be extended such that any effect from acceleration would be ''de minimis''.</ref>
#Based on Relativity, Einstein claimed in 1909 that the [[aether (science)|aether]] does not exist, but in order to make subatomic physics work right, theorists had to introduce the aether-like concept of the Higgs field, which fills all of space and breaks symmetries.
#[[Minkowski space]] is predicated on the idea of four-dimensional vectors of which one component is [[time]]. However, one of the properties of a [[vector space]] is that every vector have an inverse. Time (formally: movement forward in time) cannot be a vector because it has no inverse.
#In [[Genesis (ch.1)|Genesis 1:6-8]], we are told that one of God's first creations was a firmament in the heavens. This likely refers to the creation of the luminiferous [[aether]].
#It is impossible to perform an experiment to determine whether Einstein's theory of relativity is correct, or the older Lorentz aether theory is correct. Believing one over the other is a matter of [[faith]].
#Despite a century of wasting billions of dollars in work on the theory, "No one knows how to solve completely the equations of general relativity that describe gravity; they are simply beyond current understanding."<ref>[http://www.mathunion.org/o/General/Prizes/2006/TaoENG.pdf Statement in awarding the coveted Fields Medal]</ref>
#Experiments in electromagnetic induction contradict Relativity: "Einstein’s Relativity ... can not explain the experiment in graph 2, in which moving magnetic field has not produced electric field."<ref>http://www.wbabin.net/weuro/qingping1.pdf</ref><ref>http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0504223</ref>
#Relativity breaks down if a [[solenoid]] is traveling at or near the speed of light.<ref>http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=3244279</ref>
#General Relativity predicts how the gravitational fields of the Sun and Moon generate ocean tides. However, in the summer of 2009, tides along the East Coast of the United States were higher than expected. <ref>http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/07/hightides/</ref>
#The supermassive black hole within the [[Andromeda galaxy]] puzzled researchers by increasing in brightness by a factor of 100 in 2006.<ref>http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2010/0525/Two-giant-black-holes-surprise-scientists-with-unexpected-behavior.</ref>
#Scientists are unable to explain a June 2012 cluster of [[earthquake]]s in [[Ireland]].<ref>http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/0607/1224317443871.html</ref>
#Apparently, the equations of General Relativity do not apply to the motions of extra-solar planets. Scientists are studying Gamma Cephei, a system of two stars and one known planet. When data from the Hubble Space telescope was analyzed, it was found that the observed orbital arrangement should not be stable.<ref>http://stardate.org/radio/program/gamma-cephei-iv</ref>
#General Relativity fails to predict the Allais Effect. The Christian researcher and economist Maurice Allais noted a sudden change in the [[orientation]] of a swinging [[Foucault's Pendulum|pendulum]] during the 1959 [[solar eclipse]].<ref>http://www.allais.info/allaisdox.htm</ref> Many subsequent attempts to duplicate the result have been ''reported as'' failures, consistent with an concerted effort to suppress knowledge about the phenomenon.
#The Pauli Exclusion Principle states that no two electrons in a closed system can exist in the same quantum state and if one electron changes all others must compensate. As the universe is a closed system when one electron changes state so must all others, even if they are thousands of light years apart.<ref>http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/life-and-physics/2012/feb/28/1.</ref>
(add to list)

''For a discussion of attempts to rebut some of these counterarguments, see [[Essay:Rebuttal to Counterexamples to Relativity]].''

== See also ==
*[[Theory of relativity]]
*[[General Theory of Relativity]]
*[[Special Theory of Relativity]]
*[[E=mc²]]
*[[Counterexamples to Evolution]]
*[[Counterexamples to an Old Earth]]
*[[Counterexamples to the Bible]]

== Notes ==
<references group="note"/>
== References ==

{{Reflist}}
{{Counterexamples}}
{{Relativity}}
[[Category:physics]]
[[Category:relativity]]
[[Category:science]]

Jane Austen

2013-06-30T18:58:37Z

Tomqua:

'''Jane Austen''' (December 16, 1775 – July 18, 1817) was a British writer in the early nineteenth century.
Her works include various comic stories, six completed novels, and two unfinished novels, but her best-known works may be ''[[Pride and Prejudice]]'' and ''[[Emma]]''. In June 2013, she was reportedly favored to replace [[Charles Darwin]] on the [[British]] £10 note, according to the [[Bank of England]].<ref>http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/money/money-matters/jane-austen-could-become-the-new-face-of-britains-10-pound-note/story-fni0ctl0-1226669886966</ref>

She wrote her first two works, ''[[Sense and Sensibility]]'' and ''Pride and Prejudice'', in her early twenties. ''Northanger Abbey'', her third manuscript, sold to a publisher for ten pounds, but was not immediately published.

Austen's family moved to Bath when she was 25. This marks the beginning of a fallow period in her writing, and eight years of much family upheaval. In 1809, Austen, her sisters, and her mother moved to Chawton, where she was able to write again.

''Sense and Sensibility'' was finally published in 1811, and ''Pride and Prejudice'' followed in 1813. ''Mansfield Park'' and ''Emma'' followed in 1814 and 1815. Austen finished her work ''Persuasion'' in 1816, when the rights for ''Northanger Abbey'' were bought back by Austen's brother.

Jane Austen died July 18, 1817, possibly from poisoning attributed to drinking unpasteurized milk, just a few months before her last two novels were published together in December, finally identifying her and her previous works.

==Novel outlines==
In ''Pride and Prejudice'', the two antagonists are the immensely wealthy Mr. Darcy and the middle-class Elizabeth Bennet. Her [[prejudice]] against his [[pride]] and disdain is gradually broken down by his kindness.

In ''Emma'', the protagonist, Emma Woodhouse, is a comically incompetent matchmaker who almost misses her own true love.

==Novels by Jane Austen==

:Sense and Sensibility
:Pride and Prejudice
:Mansfield Park
:Emma
:Northanger Abbey
:Persuasion

== References ==

<references/>

==External links==
*[http://www.jimandellen.org/austen/janeausten.onfilm.html Film Adaptations of Jane Austen's Novels]
*[http://www.pemberley.com Online appreciation of Jane Austen fansite]
*[http://www.jasna.org/info/about_austen.html]
*[http://www.janeausten.co.uk/ The Jane Austin Center, Bath]

{{DEFAULTSORT:Austen, Jane}}

[[category:Women Authors]]

Jane Austen

2013-06-30T18:54:50Z

Tomqua: /* Novel outlines */

'''Jane Austen''' (December 16, 1775 – July 18, 1817) was a British writer in the early nineteenth century.
Her works include various comic stories, six completed novels, and two unfinished novels, but her best-known works may be ''[[Pride and Prejudice]]'' and ''[[Emma]]''. In June 2013, she was reportedly favored to replace [[Charles Darwin]] on the [[British]] £10 note, according to the [[Bank of England]].<ref>http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/money/money-matters/jane-austen-could-become-the-new-face-of-britains-10-pound-note/story-fni0ctl0-1226669886966</ref>

She wrote her first two works, ''[[Sense and Sensibility]]'' and ''Pride and Prejudice'', in her early twenties. ''Northanger Abbey'', her third manuscript, sold to a publisher for ten pounds, but was not immediately published.

Austen's family moved to Bath when she was 25. This marks the beginning of a fallow period in her writing, and eight years of much family upheaval. In 1809, Austen, her sisters, and her mother moved to Chawton, where she was able to write again.

''Sense and Sensibility'' was finally published in 1811, and ''Pride and Prejudice'' followed in 1813. ''Mansfield Park'' and ''Emma'' followed in 1814 and 1815. Austen finished her work ''Persuasion'' in 1816, when the rights for ''Northanger Abbey'' were bought back by Austen's brother.

Jane Austen died July 18, 1817, just a few months before her last two novels were published together in December, finally identifying her and her previous works.

==Novel outlines==
In ''Pride and Prejudice'', the two antagonists are the immensely wealthy Mr. Darcy and the middle-class Elizabeth Bennet. Her [[prejudice]] against his [[pride]] and disdain is gradually broken down by his kindness.

In ''Emma'', the protagonist, Emma Woodhouse, is a comically incompetent matchmaker who almost misses her own true love.

==Novels by Jane Austen==

:Sense and Sensibility
:Pride and Prejudice
:Mansfield Park
:Emma
:Northanger Abbey
:Persuasion

== References ==

<references/>

==External links==
*[http://www.jimandellen.org/austen/janeausten.onfilm.html Film Adaptations of Jane Austen's Novels]
*[http://www.pemberley.com Online appreciation of Jane Austen fansite]
*[http://www.jasna.org/info/about_austen.html]
*[http://www.janeausten.co.uk/ The Jane Austin Center, Bath]

{{DEFAULTSORT:Austen, Jane}}

[[category:Women Authors]]

Ruth (Translated)

2013-06-25T03:30:15Z

Tomqua: correct typo

{{ConservativeBible}}

<----Please write any introduction you wish to here, but keep the beginning of the translation where it is or lower for formatting. Thanks! ---->

==Chapter 1==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|Now it came to pass in the days when the judges ruled, that there was a famine in the land. And a certain man of Bethlehemjudah went to sojourn in the country of Moab, he, and his wife, and his two sons.
|In the days when politicians ruled there was a famine in the land. A man from Bethlehemjudah went on a trip to the country of Moab with his wife and two sons.
|Politicians causing famine - Biblical support for the idea of small government.
|-
|2
|And the name of the man was Elimelech, and the name of his wife Naomi, and the name of his two sons Mahlon and Chilion, Ephrathites of Bethlehemjudah. And they came into the country of Moab, and continued there.
|This man's name was Elimelech, his wife was named Naomi and his sons where called Mahlon and Chilion. They where Ephrathites of Bethlehemjudah. They entered they continued travelling in the country of Moab.
|
|-
|3
|And Elimelech Naomi's husband died; and she was left, and her two sons.
|There Elimelch died, he was survived by his wife Naomi and their two sons.
|
|-
|4
|And they took them wives of the women of Moab; the name of the one was Orpah, and the name of the other Ruth: and they dwelled there about ten years.
|And there they married women of Moab: One was named Orpah, the other was Ruth: They lived there for approximately ten years.
|
|-
|5
|And Mahlon and Chilion died also both of them; and the woman was left of her two sons and her husband.
|And both Mahlon and Chilion died; and the woman was left out of her two sons and husband.
|
|-
|6
|Then she arose with her daughters in law, that she might return from the country of Moab: for she had heard in the country of Moab how that the LORD had visited his people in giving them bread.
|She then departed with her daughters in law, so that she may leave the country of Moab. She had heard that LORD had been visiting people and giving them bread in the country of Moab.
|
|-
|7
|Wherefore she went forth out of the place where she was, and her two daughters in law with her; and they went on the way to return unto the land of Judah.
|She and her two daughters in law then left the country they where in and went back to the land of Judah.
|
|-
|8
|And Naomi said unto her two daughters in law, Go, return each to her mother's house: the LORD deal kindly with you, as ye have dealt with the dead, and with me.
|Naomi said to here daughters in laws; Go and return to your mum's house. The LORD will kindly deal with you as you have dealt with the dead and me.
|
|-
|9
|The LORD grant you that ye may find rest, each of you in the house of her husband. Then she kissed them; and they lifted up their voice, and wept.
|The LORD shall grant you and you may find rest in you house. She then kissed them as they cried.
|
|-
|10
|And they said unto her, Surely we will return with thee unto thy people.
|And they told her, for with you we will return to your people.
|
|-
|11
|And Naomi said, Turn again, my daughters: why will ye go with me? are there yet any more sons in my womb, that they may be your husbands?
|And Naomi said, return, my daughters: why will you go with me? Do I still have sons in my womb to be your husbands?
|
|-
|12
|Turn again, my daughters, go your way; for I am too old to have an husband. If I should say, I have hope, if I should have an husband also to night, and should also bear sons;
|Return, my daughters, because I am too old to get a husband. If I will say, I have hope, if I will have a husband tonight and will give birth to children,
|
|-
|13
|Would ye tarry for them till they were grown? would ye stay for them from having husbands? nay, my daughters; for it grieveth me much for your sakes that the hand of the LORD is gone out against me.
|Would you wait until they are grown? Will you not give yourself to a man? No, my daughters, because it is tougher for me than you, because the hand of the LORD went out against me.
|
|-
|14
|And they lifted up their voice, and wept again: and Orpah kissed her mother in law; but Ruth clave unto her.
|And they changed their voice, and cried some more: and Orpah gave a kiss to her mother in law, and Ruth stuck to her.
|
|-
|15
|And she said, Behold, thy sister in law is gone back unto her people, and unto her gods: return thou after thy sister in law.
|And she said, here comes your sister in law back to her people, and to her gods: go back after your sister in law.
|
|-
|16
|And Ruth said, Intreat me not to leave thee, or to return from following after thee: for whither thou goest, I will go; and where thou lodgest, I will lodge: thy people shall be my people, and thy God my God:
|And Ruth said, don't tell me to leave you or to return and to not follow you, because wherever you will go I will go, and when you will sleep I will sleep: your people are my people and your God is my God:
|
|-
|17
|Where thou diest, will I die, and there will I be buried: the LORD do so to me, and more also, if ought but death part thee and me.
|Where you will die I will die, and will be buried there: this is what the LORD will do to me, and will make it so that death will separate between you and me.
|
|-
|18
|When she saw that she was stedfastly minded to go with her, then she left speaking unto her.
|And she that she was trying to go with her, and she stopped talking to her.
|
|-
|19
|So they two went until they came to Bethlehem. And it came to pass, when they were come to Bethlehem, that all the city was moved about them, and they said, Is this Naomi?
|And they both went until they reached Bethlehem. And when they came to Bethlehem, all the the city was excited by them, and they said, is this Naomi?
|
|-
|20
|And she said unto them, Call me not Naomi, call me Mara: for the Almighty hath dealt very bitterly with me.
|And she told them, don't call me Naomi, call me Mara, because the Almighty has been bitter to me.
|
|-
|21
|I went out full, and the LORD hath brought me home again empty: why then call ye me Naomi, seeing the LORD hath testified against me, and the Almighty hath afflicted me?
|I went out full, and the LORD returned me empty: why should you call me Naomi when the LORD has testified against me, and the Almighty has done bad to me?
|
|-
|22
|So Naomi returned, and Ruth the Moabitess, her daughter in law, with her, which returned out of the country of Moab: and they came to Bethlehem in the beginning of barley harvest.
|And Naomi returned, and Ruth the Moabitess, her daughter in law, with her, who returned from the land of Moab: and they came to Bethlehem in the beginning of the Barley Harvest.
|
|-
|}

==Chapter 2==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|And Naomi had a kinsman of her husband's, a mighty man of wealth, of the family of Elimelech; and his name was Boaz.
|And Noami had a kinsman of her husband, a very wealthy man, from the family of Elimelech, whose name was Boaz.
|
|-
|2
|And Ruth the Moabitess said unto Naomi, Let me now go to the field, and glean ears of corn after him in whose sight I shall find grace. And she said unto her, Go, my daughter.
|And Ruth the Moabite told Naomi, I will go to the field and pick up grain after the one that in his eyes I will be found likeable. And she told her, go, my daughter.
|
|-
|3
|And she went, and came, and gleaned in the field after the reapers: and her hap was to light on a part of the field belonging unto Boaz, who was of the kindred of Elimelech.
|And she went and came, and picked grain in the field after the reapers: and she came to a part of the field belonging to Boaz, who was from the family of Elimelech.
|
|-
|4
|And behold, Boaz came from Bethlehem, and said unto the reapers, The LORD be with you. And they answered him, The LORD bless thee.
|And then Boaz came from Bethlehem, and told the reapers, the LORD is with you, and they told him, the LORD will bless you.
|
|-
|5
|Then said Boaz unto his servant that was set over the reapers, Whose damsel is this?
|And Boaz said to his boy, who was in charge of the reapers, to whom does this teenager belongs to?
|
|-
|6
|And the servant that was set over the reapers answered and said, It is the Moabitish damsel that came back with Naomi out of the country of Moab:
|And the boy who was in charge of the reapers said, She is a Moabite teenager that came with Naomi from the land of Moab:
|
|-
|7
|And she said, I pray you, let me glean and gather after the reapers among the sheaves: so she came, and hath continued even from the morning until now, that she tarried a little in the house.
|And she said, let me pick grains and gather after the reapers among the sheaves: so she came and stand from the morning until now, she has been staying the house for a shot time.
|
|-
|8
|Then said Boaz unto Ruth, Hearest thou not, my daughter? Go not to glean in another field, neither go from hence, but abide here fast by my maidens:
|Then Boaz told Ruth, haven't you heard my girl? Don't go to pick grains in another field, and don't go from here, but stick around with my girls.
|
|-
|9
|Let thine eyes be on the field that they do reap, and go thou after them: have I not charged the young men that they shall not touch thee? and when thou art athirst, go unto the vessels, and drink of that which the young men have drawn.
|Your eyes on the field will do the reaping, and go after them: Did I not tell the boys not to touch you? And you will be thirsty, go to the tools, and drink what the boys have drawn.
|
|-
|10
|Then she fell on her face, and bowed herself to the ground, and said unto him, Why have I found grace in thine eyes, that thou shouldest take knowledge of me, seeing I am a stranger?
|And she fell on her face and bowed down, and told him, Why did you find me likeable, that you would like to know me, considering that I'm a foreigner?
|
|-
|11
|And Boaz answered and said unto her, It hath fully been shewed me, all that thou hast done unto thy mother in law since the death of thine husband: and how thou hast left thy father and thy mother, and the land of thy nativity, and art come unto a people which thou knewest not heretofore.
|And Boaz told her, I have been told of all that you have done to your mother in law since the death of your husband: and now you left your mother and father and your homeland and you went to a people you did not know before.
|
|-
|12
|The LORD recompense thy work, and a full reward be given thee of the LORD God of Israel, under whose wings thou art come to trust.
|The LORD will pay you for your work, and a full wage will be give to you from the LORD God of Israel, that you have come to be under his wings.
|
|-
|13
|Then she said, Let me find favour in thy sight, my lord; for that thou hast comforted me, and for that thou hast spoken friendly unto thine handmaid, though I be not like unto one of thine handmaidens.
|And she said, Let me be likeable in your eyes, my LORD; because you have comforted me and spoken to the heart of your servant, even though I am not like your other servants.
|
|-
|14
|And Boaz said unto her, At mealtime come thou hither, and eat of the bread, and dip thy morsel in the vinegar. And she sat beside the reapers: and he reached her parched corn, and she did eat, and was sufficed, and left.
|And during mealtime Boaz told her, come forth and eat the bread, and dip you morsel in the vinegar. And she set next to the reapers: and he gave her parched corn, and she ate and was full and then left.
|
|-
|15
|And when she was risen up to glean, Boaz commanded his young men, saying, Let her glean even among the sheaves, and reproach her not:
|And she rose to pick grain; Boaz commanded his boys, saying, let her pick grains even in the sheaves, and don't approach her:
|
|-
|16
|And let fall also some of the handfuls of purpose for her, and leave them, that she may glean them, and rebuke her not.
|And let fall also some of the handfuls of purpose for her, and leave them, so that she will pick them, and don't criticize her.
|
|-
|17
|So she gleaned in the field until even, and beat out that she had gleaned: and it was about an ephah of barley.
|So she picked grain in the field until the evening, and beat out what she had picked: and it was about an ephah of barley.
|
|-
|18
|And she took it up, and went into the city: and her mother in law saw what she had gleaned: and she brought forth, and gave to her that she had reserved after she was sufficed.
|And she carried it and came to the city: and her mother in law saw what she had picked: she gave to her what she saved after she was full.
|
|-
|19
|And her mother in law said unto her, Where hast thou gleaned to day? and where wroughtest thou? blessed be he that did take knowledge of thee. And she shewed her mother in law with whom she had wrought, and said, The man's name with whom I wrought to day is Boaz.
|And her mother in law told her, where did you picked grains today? And where did you work? He who looked at you should be blessed. And she told her mother in law what she did with him, and said, The man with whom I worked today is called Boaz.
|
|-
|20
|And Naomi said unto her daughter in law, Blessed be he of the LORD, who hath not left off his kindness to the living and to the dead. And Naomi said unto her, The man is near of kin unto us, one of our next kinsmen.
|And Naomi told her daughter in law, Blessed he is to the LORD, who has not left off his kindness to the living and to the dead. And Naomi told her, The man is a relative of ours, one of our extended family.
|
|-
|21
|And Ruth the Moabitess said, He said unto me also, Thou shalt keep fast by my young men, until they have ended all my harvest.
|And Ruth the Moabite said, He also told me, you will stick to my boys until they will finish all of my harvest.
|
|-
|22
|And Naomi said unto Ruth her daughter in law, It is good, my daughter, that thou go out with his maidens, that they meet thee not in any other field.
|And Naomi told Ruth her daughter in law, It will be good, my daughter, that you will go with his girls, that they will not hurt you in the other field.
|
|-
|23
|So she kept fast by the maidens of Boaz to glean unto the end of barley harvest and of wheat harvest; and dwelt with her mother in law.
|So she stuck to the girls of Boaz to pick to pick grains until the end of the barley harvest and the wheat harvest; and she lived with her mother in law.
|
|-
|}

==Chapter 3==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|Then Naomi her mother in law said unto her, My daughter, shall I not seek rest for thee, that it may be well with thee?
|And Naomi her mother in law told her, My daughter, should I not ask that you will have rest, so it will be good for you?
|
|-
|2
|And now is not Boaz of our kindred, with whose maidens thou wast? Behold, he winnoweth barley to night in the threshingfloor.
|And now is not Boaz from out extended family, with whose girls you you have been? Look, he is planting barley in the night in the threshingfloor.
|
|-
|3
|Wash thyself therefore, and anoint thee, and put thy raiment upon thee, and get thee down to the floor: but make not thyself known unto the man, until he shall have done eating and drinking.
|So wash and anoint yourself, and put a dress on you, and get down to the floor: but don't show yourself to the man, until he finished eating and drinking.
|
|-
|4
|And it shall be, when he lieth down, that thou shalt mark the place where he shall lie, and thou shalt go in, and uncover his feet, and lay thee down; and he will tell thee what thou shalt do.
|When he lies down, you will notice the place where he will lie, uncover his feet and lay yourself down; and he will tell you what you shall do.
|
|-
|5
|And she said unto her, All that thou sayest unto me I will do.
|And she told her, All that you say to me I will do.
|
|-
|6
|And she went down unto the floor, and did according to all that her mother in law bade her.
|And she went down to the floor, and acted according to what her mother in law told her.
|
|-
|7
|And when Boaz had eaten and drunk, and his heart was merry, he went to lie down at the end of the heap of corn: and she came softly, and uncovered his feet, and laid her down.
|And when Boaz ate and drank, and his heart was jolly, he went to lie down at the end of the heap of corn: and she came softly, and uncovered his feet, and laid down.
|
|-
|8
|And it came to pass at midnight, that the man was afraid, and turned himself: and, behold, a woman lay at his feet.
|And so at midnight, the man was afraid and turned himself: and there it was, a woman lying by his feet.
|
|-
|9
|And he said, Who art thou? And she answered, I am Ruth thine handmaid: spread therefore thy skirt over thine handmaid; for thou art a near kinsman.
|And he said, Who are you? And she answered, I am Ruth your your maid, you spread your wing over your maid; because you are a near kinsman.
|
|-
|10
|And he said, Blessed be thou of the LORD, my daughter: for thou hast shewed more kindness in the latter end than at the beginning, inasmuch as thou followedst not young men, whether poor or rich.
|And he said, Blessed you are for the LORD, my daughter: you first act of charity was greater than your last, for you didn't go to young men, poor or rich.
|
|-
|11
|And now, my daughter, fear not; I will do to thee all that thou requirest: for all the city of my people doth know that thou art a virtuous woman.
|And now, my daughter, don't fear; I will do to you everything you request: for all of my people know you are a virtuous woman.
|
|-
|12
|And now it is true that I am thy near kinsman: howbeit there is a kinsman nearer than I.
|And now it is true that I am your near relative: but there is a relative closer than me.
|
|-
|13
|Tarry this night, and it shall be in the morning, that if he will perform unto thee the part of a kinsman, well; let him do the kinsman's part: but if he will not do the part of a kinsman to thee, then will I do the part of a kinsman to thee, as the LORD liveth: lie down until the morning.
|Sleep tonight, and in it the morning, if he will perform the role of a relative to you then well; let him do the role of a relative: but if he will not do the role of a relative to you, then I will do the role of a relative to you, as the LORD lives: sleep until the morning.
|
|-
|14
|And she lay at his feet until the morning: and she rose up before one could know another. And he said, Let it not be known that a woman came into the floor.
|And say lat next to his feet until the morning, and she rose before one could know the other. And he, It should be known that a woman came to the floor.
|
|-
|15
|Also he said, Bring the vail that thou hast upon thee, and hold it. And when she held it, he measured six measures of barley, and laid it on her: and she went into the city.
|And he said, Bring the towel that is on you, and hold it. And when she held it, he measured six measures of barley, and put it on her: and she went to the city.
|
|-
|16
|And when she came to her mother in law, she said, Who art thou, my daughter? And she told her all that the man had done to her.
|And she come to her mother in law, who said, Who are you, my daughter? And she all told her all about what the man had done to her.
|
|-
|17
|And she said, These six measures of barley gave he me; for he said to me, Go not empty unto thy mother in law.
|And she said, He gave me these six measures of barley; because he told me, Don't go without nothing to your mother in law.
|
|-
|18
|Then said she, Sit still, my daughter, until thou know how the matter will fall: for the man will not be in rest, until he have finished the thing this day.
|And she said, Sit my daughter, until you will know how things will turn out: because the man will not rest until he will finish the thing today.
|
|-
|}

==Chapter 4==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|Then went Boaz up to the gate, and sat him down there: and, behold, the kinsman of whom Boaz spake came by; unto whom he said, Ho, such a one! turn aside, sit down here. And he turned aside, and sat down.
|And Boaz went to the gate, and sat there: and then the relative that Boaz spoke about came by; he told him, Turn aside and sit here. And he turned aside and set.
|
|-
|2
|And he took ten men of the elders of the city, and said, Sit ye down here. And they sat down.
|And took ten me from the elders of the city, and said, Sit here. And they sat.
|
|-
|3
|And he said unto the kinsman, Naomi, that is come again out of the country of Moab, selleth a parcel of land, which was our brother Elimelech's:
|And he told the relative, Naomi, who came back from the land of Moab, sold the portion of land which belonged to our brother Elimelech:
|
|-
|4
|And I thought to advertise thee, saying, Buy it before the inhabitants, and before the elders of my people. If thou wilt redeem it, redeem it: but if thou wilt not redeem it, then tell me, that I may know: for there is none to redeem it beside thee; and I am after thee. And he said, I will redeem it.
|And I decided to advertise you, saying, Buy it before the inhabitants, and before the elders from my people. If you are going to redeem it then redeem it. If not you will not redeem it, then tell so that I will know: that is because there is no one that I know of to redeem it except you; and I am after you. And he said, I will redeem it.
|
|-
|5
|Then said Boaz, What day thou buyest the field of the hand of Naomi, thou must buy it also of Ruth the Moabitess, the wife of the dead, to raise up the name of the dead upon his inheritance.
|And Boaz said, When you will buy the field from Naomi, you must buy it also from Ruth the Moabite, the wife the deceased, to raise up the name of the deceased upon his inheritance.
|
|-
|6
|And the kinsman said, I cannot redeem it for myself, lest I mar mine own inheritance: redeem thou my right to thyself; for I cannot redeem it.
|And the relative said, I cannot redeem it for myself, because it will corrupt my own inheritance: You will redeem it instead of me, because I cannot redeem it.
|
|-
|7
|Now this was the manner in former time in Israel concerning redeeming and concerning changing, for to confirm all things; a man plucked off his shoe, and gave it to his neighbour: and this was a testimony in Israel.
|Now this was the manner in previous times in Israel concerning redemption and concerning change. For to confirm all things; a man took off his shoe and gave it to his neighbour, and this was a testimony in Israel.
|
|-
|8
|Therefore the kinsman said unto Boaz, Buy it for thee. So he drew off his shoe.
|Therefore the brother said to Boaz, buy it for them. So he took off his shoe.
|
|-
|9
|And Boaz said unto the elders, and unto all the people, Ye are witnesses this day, that I have bought all that was Elimelech's, and all that was Chilion's and Mahlon's, of the hand of Naomi.
|
|
|-
|10
|Moreover Ruth the Moabitess, the wife of Mahlon, have I purchased to be my wife, to raise up the name of the dead upon his inheritance, that the name of the dead be not cut off from among his brethren, and from the gate of his place: ye are witnesses this day.
|
|
|-
|11
|And all the people that were in the gate, and the elders, said, We are witnesses. The LORD make the woman that is come into thine house like Rachel and like Leah, which two did build the house of Israel: and do thou worthily in Ephratah, and be famous in Bethlehem:
|
|
|-
|12
|And let thy house be like the house of Pharez, whom Tamar bare unto Judah, of the seed which the LORD shall give thee of this young woman.
|
|
|-
|13
|So Boaz took Ruth, and she was his wife: and when he went in unto her, the LORD gave her conception, and she bare a son.
|
|
|-
|14
|And the women said unto Naomi, Blessed be the LORD, which hath not left thee this day without a kinsman, that his name may be famous in Israel.
|
|
|-
|15
|And he shall be unto thee a restorer of thy life, and a nourisher of thine old age: for thy daughter in law, which loveth thee, which is better to thee than seven sons, hath born him.
|
|
|-
|16
|And Naomi took the child, and laid it in her bosom, and became nurse unto it.
|
|
|-
|17
|And the women her neighbours gave it a name, saying, There is a son born to Naomi; and they called his name Obed: he is the father of Jesse, the father of David.
|
|
|-
|18
|Now these are the generations of Pharez: Pharez begat Hezron,
|
|
|-
|19
|And Hezron begat Ram, and Ram begat Amminadab,
|
|
|-
|20
|And Amminadab begat Nahshon, and Nahshon begat Salmon,
|
|
|-
|21
|And Salmon begat Boaz, and Boaz begat Obed,
|
|
|-
|22
|And Obed begat Jesse, and Jesse begat David.
|
|
|-
|}

[[Category: Conservative Bible]]

Talk:Deaths directly attributed to the liberal media

2013-06-23T07:17:29Z

Tomqua:

The WWF is liberal media? I'd actually be willing to bet money that the majority of professional wrestling fans vote Republican...{{unsigned|user:gtbob12}}
:I'll take your money. WWE is close enough, see the link [http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2011/06/basketball-play.html] --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 15:49, 29 June 2011 (EDT)
::That's one interesting graph. [[User:BobSherman|BobSherman]] 19:21, 23 July 2011 (EDT)

While you did source your graph, I do find it very difficult to believe that WWE wrestling fans are almost as liberal as NBA fans. While I do concede that a large percentage of Independent wrestling fans are liberals, mainstream wrestling draws a decidedly conservative audience, even in the north. As a lifelong wrestling fan who is very active in the Internet Wrestling community, in my experience, as well as that of others, mainstream wrestling fans are overwhelmingly conservative. The WWE has run angles in support of the war on terror, has long relied on Patriotic faces (good guys), and rarely has to faces be members of racial groups outside of White, protestants. Wrestling still does it's biggest business in the overwhelmingly conservative south, and is based Connecticut, among the wealthy, fiscal conservatives in New England. Furthermore, it appears that all of the other deaths are related to reports of mainstream news outlets, not entertainment outlets. I could go on an argue that it was not the responsibility of the media to supervise, and teach those kids, rather it is the parents, as well as the fact that the WWE often sprinkles "don't try this at home" messages throughout their programming, but that is a whole different can of worms. I feel I would be remiss to go on an anti-Jack Thompson/Joe Lieberman rant here, plus, I believe it would divert attention from my original point. - [[User:Ckennedy|Ckennedy]] 13:48, 22 June 2012 (EDT)

:I think I can agree with your statement and it's more a play than a sport. Though the liberal media is the broadcaster of such events. They have a responsibility to show these matches past primetime and a TV ratings warning, which wasn't the case at the time. Ultimately, the parents lack of supervision is to blame.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 13:59, 22 June 2012 (EDT)

How many children died at Beziers, JPatt? [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 23:06, 22 June 2013 (EDT)

:I don't see mention of that in the content entry or this talk page. Please explain your point.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:29, 22 June 2013 (EDT)

My point is that the Church itself has been known to be not exactly innocent in the slaying of the innocent. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 00:09, 23 June 2013 (EDT)

:Surely some blame must be placed on the people whose actions were reported on by the media. If they had not done these things there would have been nothing to report. And I am quite sure all media, not just liberal, reported at least some of these actions, certainly Rodney King--[[User:Tomqua|Tomqua]] 03:17, 23 June 2013 (EDT)

Talk:Great Britain

2013-06-16T22:37:57Z

Tomqua:

Anyone for cleaning up this page? It seems pretty clear that someone had an ax to grind when making the majority of the page on Great Britain about its alleged moral decline.
:Criticism of moral decline is valid, but should be moved to the UK article. Great Britain is and island and not a state so I think this article should be geographical. Any objections if I change this article to reflect that?--[[User:Tomqua|Tomqua]] 18:37, 16 June 2013 (EDT)

Talk:Richard Dawkins

2013-06-13T20:26:08Z

Tomqua:

*[[Talk:Richard Dawkins/Archive 1|Archive #1]]
*[[Talk:Richard Dawkins/Archive 2|Archive #2]]
*[[Talk:Richard Dawkins/Archive 3|Archive #3]]
*[[Talk:Richard Dawkins/Archive 4|Archive #4]]
*[[Talk:Richard Dawkins/Archive 9|Archive #9]]
*[[Talk:Richard Dawkins/Archive 5|Archive #5]]
*[[Talk:Richard Dawkins/Archive 6|Archive #6]]
*[[Talk:Richard Dawkins/Archive 7|Archive #7]]
*[[Talk:Richard Dawkins/Archive 8|Archive #8]]


== Lawsuits ==

Update the brief note on Dawkins' lawsuit against Josh Timonen. It appears that, worse than being sloppy financial oversight on his part - the lawsuit itself was entirely baseless, and quite possibly defamatory and fraudulent. The case was dismissed with prejudice and Josh Timonen is now suing Dawkins and others. However, charges of sloppiness remain valid with respect to Dawkins oversight and involvement in said lawsuit: http://www.rationalskepticism.org/news-politics/dawkins-sues-josh-timonen-t14455-2620.html#p1572780

In October 2010, Richard Dawkins and RDFRS filed a complaint against Josh Timonen, Maureen Norton, and Timonen's production company, Upper Branch Productions - alleging that the defendants had embezzled funds from the Richard Dawkins Foundation, and owed Dawkins personally money.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/10/22/31283.htm |title=Courthouse News Service |publisher=Courthousenews.com |date=2010-10-22 |accessdate=2012-06-11}}</ref> In August 2011, the lawsuit against Timonen ''et al'' was dismissed with prejudice, and costs were awarded to the defendants.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://docs.google.com/file/d/1pF9EuUEP1Db9oBYSREBIyYmNEVOGZpRblEJeHnV6Z0edgt1eziuiKEBj5cxJ/edit |title=Upper Branch Productions Vs RDFRS et al, First Amended Complaint |date=2012-12-10 |accessdate=2013-03-08}}</ref> (See page 15 of document cited.)

In December 2012, Timonen's company, Upper Branch Productions filed a complaint against The Richard Dawkins Foundation, Richard Dawkins, Robin Elisabeth Cornwell, Michael Cornwell, and Innerworkings Incorporated, alleging fraud, breach of contract, and numerous counts of copyright infringement.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://docs.google.com/file/d/1pF9EuUEP1Db9oBYSREBIyYmNEVOGZpRblEJeHnV6Z0edgt1eziuiKEBj5cxJ/edit |title=Upper Branch Productions Vs RDFRS et al, First Amended Complaint |date=2012-12-10 |accessdate=2013-03-08}}</ref> The following statements made in paragraphs 22-24 of [https://docs.google.com/file/d/1pF9EuUEP1Db9oBYSREBIyYmNEVOGZpRblEJeHnV6Z0edgt1eziuiKEBj5cxJ/edit Upper Branch's First Amended Complaint against RDFRS ''et al''] are particularly notable, with respect to the nature of the allegations made against Timonen by RDFRS and Dawkins in October 2010, regarding Timonen's operation of the RichardDawkins.net online store and RDFRS and Dawkins' knowledge of same:

"''22. All products sold in the Upper Branch Store publicized the issues and cause(s) supported and advanced by Dawkins and RDF but '''Dawkins made clear that, in Dawkins’ own words, the Upper Branch Store was “not directly concerned with RDF[]’[s] activities'''.”

''23. At all times hereunder, Plaintiff was an independent business (independent from RDF, et al.), and Mr. Timonen autonomously ran and operated the Upper Branch Store from a location within Los Angeles, California.''

''24. '''Timonen proposed to Dawkins that Timonen could donate certain profits of the Upper Branch Store operation to RDF. In response, on or about July 25, 2007, Dawkins emailed Timonen in Los Angeles: “it’s your baby, your profits, your tax . . . as for whether Upper Branch should make a donation to RDF[], I don’t think you should feel any moral obligations in that regard.”'''''"

Emphasis added.

Also note the facts that Josh Timonen was never an employee of Richard Dawkins or the Richard Dawkins Foundation. He was an independent contractor.

::Thanks, I deleted it. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:51, 8 March 2013 (EST)

== Elevatorgate ==

Develop [[Elevatorgate]] article and incorporate it into the Richard Dawkins article. Mention the atheist Rebecca Watson is no longer going to recommend his books, etc. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 05:34, 13 July 2011 (EDT)

http://www.salon.com/life/feature/2011/07/08/atheist_flirting

http://gawker.com/5818993/richard-dawkins-torn-limb-from-limbby-atheists

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david-allen-green/2011/07/richard-dawkins-chewing-gum

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2011/07/richard-dawkins-draws-feminist-wrath-over-sexual-harassment-comments/39637/

http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/not-your-average-read/2011/jul/16/sexism-atheism-Dawkins-Watson-feminists-Skepchick/

http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/atheologies/4978/does_atheism_have_a_misogyny_problem/

http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/story/2011-09-15/atheist-sexism-women/50416454/1

:I've been reading up on Elevatorgate and I'm going to start drafting an article on it. One thing though - he now has ten books out and I can't change it. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 09:13, 18 August 2011 (EDT)
Please be more specific about book addition. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:23, 18 August 2011 (EDT)
:There's certainly one called ''Evolution: The Greatest Show on Earth'' (or similar) that's been out for a while, and that would seem reasonably relevant to the overall tenor of this article.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:36, 18 August 2011 (EDT)
:::CPalmer, Done. Plus, I included a book which refutes that book. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:50, 18 August 2011 (EDT)
=== Consider mentioning that Wikipedia Richard Dawkins article does not mention Elevatorgate ===

Consider mentioning that Wikipedia Richard Dawkins article does not mention Elevatorgate even though it caused quite a bit of additional damage to his already damaged reputation [http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david-allen-green/2011/07/richard-dawkins-chewing-gum] (see also: [[Atheism and cowardice]], [[Richard Dawkins and pseudoscience]], etc.).[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 06:03, 9 September 2011 (EDT)

== False dichotomy ==

"Dawkins has repeatedly likened religious faith to a mental defect despite the fact that atheists are more likely to commit suicide than believers in the existence of God and the plentitude of studies associating theism with better mental and physical health."

Why "despite"? The use of this word suggests that the two assertions - religious faith being a mental defect and atheists being more likely to commit suicide than believers - are mutually exclusive. That is obviously not true. Christians may be crazy while at the same time atheists may be a bunch of suicidal pessimists. [[User:Baobab|Baobab]] 16:55, 6 September 2011 (EDT)
::I can see your jealous of the mental fitness of fervent Christians. Given the madness of atheism and Christian charitableness, no doubt Christians have built a lot of hospitals containing mental wards [[Atheism and suicide|often frequented by suicidal atheists.]] Of course, the mental toughness of Christian creationists this year on the creation vs. evolution battlefield is going to make the [[Question evolution! campaign]] very successful in 2012![http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xqt5i2Hn7Jo] It may cause a lot of atheists to have nervous breakdowns. Onward Christian soldiers! :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:39, 8 January 2012 (EST)
:::Unfortunately, I think we have to worry more about scientists in general than atheists in the QE! campaign. It's not just the atheist scientists who have been brainwashed. Either way, let's hope for the best! [[User:RedGoliath|RedGoliath]] 18:33, 8 January 2012 (GMT)
:::Conservative, what makes you think I am "jealous of the mental fitness of fervent Christians"? I merely signaled a logical flaw in the article text, without attacking Christians or praising atheists. By the way, is your spelling prowess ("I can see ''your'' jealous") testimony of the mental fitness of fervent Christians? [[User:Baobab|Baobab]] 11:44, 5 February 2012 (EST)

== Another book ==

Richard Dawkins is publishing another book. A children's book, this time, called ''The Magic of Reality: How We Know What's Really True''. See [http://www.amazon.co.uk/Magic-Reality-know-whats-really/dp/059306612X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1318250314&sr=8-1 here]. I think this should be added to the list of books.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 08:39, 10 October 2011 (EDT)

:I have added it to the list myself. (For some reason I thought the page was protected, but it isn't.)--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 08:39, 12 October 2011 (EDT)

== Dawkins - intellectual fraud: in interview could not name the full title of On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. ==

Dawkins - intellectual fraud: in interview could not name the full title of On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. [http://voxday.blogspot.com/2012/02/richard-dawkins-sans-pants.html] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 03:40, 18 February 2012 (EST)

Wow, the full title of On the Origin of Species? That's important, since that book is pretty much all there is to evolution. There hasn't been much progress or growth for a century and a half, so it's very important that people remember the full title of that book, and not just the shortened title that everyone else uses. Dawkins' inability to remember the full title of the book is a death blow against evolutionary theory, which requires that famous atheists know the full titles of famous books on evolution in order for god to not exist. I am personally disappointed with Dawkins, who should have found a way to balance his writing work, his numerous speaking engagements, his family and the need to memorize the title of Darwin's magnum opus, but has failed to do so. I think it is shameful that a scientist can call himself a scientist without knowing the full, unabridged title of this vital book, which is the center of a large amount of current research and not simply of work of historical interest, superseded by current research. Thank you, Vox Day, for bringing this vial issue to our attention, and thank you, Conservative, for providing us with vital information, the full title of the book, in your post above. No doubt the world is a better place for you two having pointed out these obvious flaws in Richard Dawkins' memory/evolution. I can only hope that scientists can jump out of the way soon enough when the big, scary train of the Question Evolution campaign comes barreling down the tracks, headed for Truthville, and cuts right through Atheism Village and sets it all on fire and everyone dies. [[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 10:39, 18 February 2012 (EST)

:Wouldn't this be an example of [[gotcha journalism]]? [[User:Ayzmo|Ayzmo :)]] 11:35, 18 February 2012 (EST)
:::Vox Day wrote: "It's bad enough that Dawkins couldn't come up with the name of what he considers to be the most important book ever written immediately after claiming he could do so, but in addition to stumbling a little on the subtitle, he even forgot the rather important part of the title that refers to the actual mechanism supposedly responsible!"[http://voxday.blogspot.com/2012/02/richard-dawkins-sans-pants.html] Second, the [http://creation.com/15-questions 15 for evolutionist] show that no progress has been made advancing credible evidence for Darwinism. Third, the atheist population is chock-full of corrupt people who are often clearly second stringers and Richard Dawkins is a prime example of this. See: [[Richard Dawkins and pseudoscience]] and [[Richard Dawkins, atheist atrocities, and historical revisionism]] and [[Richard Dawkins' commentary on Adolf Hitler]] and [[Atheism and cowardice]]. Plus, see: [[Richard Dawkins and Creation Ministries International]] and [[Atheism and mass murder]] and [[Atheism and morality]] and [[Atheism and deception]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:20, 19 February 2012 (EST)

::::Well, Conservative, first of all thank you so much for that very relevant and intelligent response. How could I forget the 15 questions for evolutionists, which we were totally talking about and are not irrelevant to this subject? I was under the impression that evolutionary biology had been improving and advancing for the last century and a half, I guess it's a good thing I have CMI around to set the record straight! And of course, even if there were some progress made, it can be safely ignored because atheists are "second stringers," which is totally a word people use outside of football. Tell me, Conservative, what other pieces of relevant wisdom do you have to share with us? Care to shoehorn feminism or obesity into the argument as well? Why not replace Dawkins' picture with a matador? Or a hundred matadors? ¡Ole ole ole! [[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 08:15, 19 February 2012 (EST)

I wonder where the creationist responses to the Evolutionist arguments are on the 15 Questions debate page... Seems they're still missing. User:Conservative, with your seemingly and suspiciously constant essays and commentary on evolution and atheism, I assume that you can easily respond to the Evolutionist answers personally - that means no quotes! - and if not, then it is you, sir, who is the inept fraud. I have given you plenty of time and my own patience, but you insist on either ignoring me or changing the subject. Prove to us that Evolution is the fraud that you so want us to believe. --[[User:RedGoliath|RedGoliath]] 13:54, 19 February 2012 (GMT)
:::Richard Dawkins was called a clown in the press in 2010 and the [[Question evolution! campaign]] will further demonstrate the man is a clown. I do find it telling that Dawkins said "Oh, God" during the debate exchange (a debate exchange that he clearly lost and made a fool of himself in). It is not surprising Richard Dawkins ducked his debate with [[William Lane Craig]] (see: [[Atheism and cowardice]]). Plus, he initially denied debating Rabbi Boteach in a videotaped debate the audience felt he lost (see: [[Richard Dawkins and Rabbi Shmuley Boteach]]). In addtion, Dawkins claimed Boteach shrieked like Adolf Hitler during the debate. How could you possibly forget debating a rabbi who supposedly shrieked like Adolf Hitler which leads me to the conclusion that Richard Dawkins is a fraud and a liar (see: [[Atheism and deception]]). [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:15, 19 February 2012 (EST)

Finally! Proof that Dawkins has no idea what he's talking about! I find it amazing that people still support him after all his blunders. --[[User:Bdor24|Bdor24]] 12:15, 19 February 2012 (EST)

This is important:'' I can't remember the full titles of some of my own papers.'' '''I still know what they contained.''' Even if I didn't, it wouldn't provide any evidence to say that their contents were erroneous. Perhaps you should all try and find some evidence to support ID instead of whining incessantly about evolution, and Dawkins in particular. Why on earth are there so many articles about him? Does his website really need its own separate article? It's senseless.

I find it disheartening that so many people here appear to conflate an individuals actions with the credibility of the theories which they support. Richard Dawkins saying 'Oh, God' is not telling at all. What is telling is that you're willing to consider that to be evidence of anything at all. It is very difficult to debate those who do not depend on evidence in order to determine what they should believe. Whether he 'wins' or not in these pointless debates is entirely beside the point.

Even if Dawkins were somehow 'defeated', it provides zero evidence in favour of ID, nor does it discredit evolution. Science is not a competition, nor is it a game. It isn't about winning or losing, and the only agenda real scientists have is to determine the truth. I'm also sick of hearing ID conspiracy theories that their papers are not accepted in real journals due to conniving scientists. It really doesn't work like that. If some ID research had any vague application of the scientific method, or even some evidence of the smallest sliver of insight and critical thought, it might not run into the same problems. Unfortunately for ID, if such standards of intellect were to be applied, the work would be self-defeating.

These specialist 'ID journals' that have popped up are just embarrassing. If I developed a hunch, and no journals would accept the paper, I would take on board the reviewers comments and try again. What I would NOT do is create an open access journal with some half-hearted, twisted ecclesiastic peer review process. It is ironic that these journals would refuse point-blank to publish a paper on evolution. Doing PRECISELY what ID proponents complained about, toward evolution. It's exceedingly hypocritical.

Disclaimer: My own views are not disclosed in the above. My issue here is not with ID, it is with the misapplication of logic. Evidence negating A does not prove B, and in no way can the actions of one individual, beyond their scientific literature, provide evidence for or against anything. Anything RD does or does not do, or says in a debate, has absolutely no bearing on either evolution or ID. Having a poor memory at 74 doesn't, either. Get a grip. If you would like ID to be taken seriously, at least try and treat it like a real science yourselves and with a little respect. If the proponents don't, the critics certainly won't. Finally, science functions through conflict. Every theory has its critics and its fans. Never until ID did this devolve into continuous ad-hominem attacks on the character of scientists. This is demonstrated by the sheer number and length of articles on Dawkins.

Why is his article longer than Jesus'? Longer life-span? More worth talking about? More significant contribution to humanity? More interesting? Better looking? What is it about Richard Dawkins, an agnostic evolutionary biologist, that warrants so much more of your time than Jesus and articles about the proponents of ID?
[[User:LucoDaw|LucoDaw]] 22:20, 9 July 2012 (EDT)

== Why does Dawkins matter so much to you? ==

There's no such thing as supernatural beings. I knew that before I'd ever heard of Dawkins, and I still know that even though I've never read a word that he's written. You can discount him and attack him and send all the sharks and dogs and whatever else you want at him, but it won't change the fact that he has nothing to do with the non-existence of deities, spirits, ghosts, demons, devils, or gods. [[User:GarryG|GarryG]] 18:33, 20 February 2012 (EST)
:Then prove your assertion, ScottDG. I would love to see an atheist prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that God doesn't exist. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:51, 20 February 2012 (EST)
[[File:Richard dawkins alexa 2012.png|right|400px]]
:::GarryG, first of all, do you know that atheism is true? What proof and evidence do you have that atheism is true? I do know that [[Christian apologetics|there is an abundance of evidence supporting Christianity]] and that [[global atheism]] is shrinking while [[global Christianity]] is seeing tremendous growth. Third, does Richard Dawkins mean so much to someone at Conservapedia? Are you a mind reader? Lastly, it appears people are caring less and less about what Richard Dawkins has to say according to: the web traffic tracking company Alexa (see graph to the right), the web traffic tracking company Compete (see: [http://siteanalytics.compete.com/richarddawkins.net/ Compete graph]) and according to Google Trends as can be seen [http://www.google.com/trends/?q=Richard+dawkins HERE] (relative to latter part of 2006). [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:58, 20 February 2012 (EST)
GarryG, by the way, why do you care so much about who may or may not be important to me? Do you have [[Essay: Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder|Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder]]? :) I suggest getting taking up a hobby. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:15, 20 February 2012 (EST)
:I'd suggest you take up one yourself. If you don't think there's proof and evidence that atheism is true and correct, well, start proving evidence that religion is true and correct better. You don't have to undermine atheism to prove religion. [[User:JLefkowitz|JLefkowitz]] 21:45, 20 February 2012 (EST)
In order to "undermine" something, it first needs to have a foundation. Here is what an atheist said about atheism: "Concentrating oneself only on being an atheist is like trying to build a house from the second floor up. It may look less costly on paper, and for people who only build houses in their imagination this may be a good way of seeing it, but it's not good enough for a serious endeavour. And most importantly, it's too fragile. I see too many religionists attacking atheism from the bottom and atheists being unable to adequately reply to the arguments. If the atheist cannot answer to his most fundamental beliefs on the nature of reality and cognition, then his atheism is worthless in terms of validation. It is nothing more than a big paper tiger, made from the finest cardboard." [http://liberator.net/articles/TremblayFrancois/herdingcats.html] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:25, 20 February 2012 (EST)
:I really don't know how to reply to that, considering you ignored the main part of my argument, where I said you kept criticizing atheism and you could prove religion without mocking and satirizing atheism. [[User:JLefkowitz|JLefkowitz]] 22:51, 20 February 2012 (EST)
::::As far as Richard Dawkins related material that I created at Conservapedia, even an atheist has cited material of mine approvingly as it documented some relevant information. The atheist Monica Shores cited some material of mine in her article on New Atheism entitled ''Will “New Atheism” Make Room For Women?'' Ms. Shores wrote: "The lack of lady presence is so visible that Conservapedia commented on it by noting that Dawkins’ website overwhelmingly attracts male visitors." You see now what a great public service my atheism related articles are to the atheist public - even an atheist sees the value of the informative material provided. :) In addition, about 10 or more web pages quote Ms. Shores cite of Conservapedia as can be seen [http://www.google.com/search?q=%22The+lack+of+lady+presence+is+so+visible+that+Conservapedia%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a HERE] (those are merely the web pages that are in the Google search results. There are probably more web pages). I hope that clears things up for you. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 07:04, 24 February 2012 (EST)

== Richard Dawkins calls himself an agnostic in no uncertain terms ==

Richard Dawkins calls himself an agnostic in no uncertain terms. [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9102740/Richard-Dawkins-I-cant-be-sure-God-does-not-exist.html] Elaborate on this point and incorporate it in the [[Richard Dawkins]] article and in the [[Richard Dawkins' worldview]] article. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 05:00, 2 March 2012 (EST)

It is Conservapedia and the media in general that consistently refers to RD as atheist, not himself. Trustworthy? The article applies particular beliefs and positions to people who have openly stated that they do not hold. This is actually a good example.

However, this is a little out of context, too. He says that he is _technically_ an agnostic as he cannot disprove Gods existence, merely interpret the available evidence. He does give an approximate percentage of 99.999....% atheist. As a scientist he cannot fairly state god does not exist without an ability to prove it. This is more than likely to be impossible - therefore he is forced to be technically agnostic. The vast majority of atheists will take a similar position - given the very notion of God is outside measurement and observation. There's a fine line between openly having bias (which is fine as it is declared), and quoting entirely out of context to suit a specific agenda. That is the impression I get from the above post. [[User:LucoDaw|LucoDaw]] 23:32, 5 July 2012 (EDT)

== Investigate Richard Dawkins view of infanticide in light of this video ==

Investigate Richard Dawkins' view of infanticide in light of this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MpOhSEA9Yb8 .

Create this article: [[Richard Dawkins and infanticide]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:29, 27 March 2012 (EDT)

== abrasive, colossal bore ==

I don't doubt that you can find for any public figure some anonymous internet hack who claims that especially this figure is an idiot, bore, charlatan, etc - but I doubt that such voices - as the unnamed ''"supporters of the Question evolution! campaign"'' - should be quoted in one of the first sections of any article on a public figure.

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:17, 18 June 2012 (EDT)

@[[User:Conservative]]: please have an eye on [[Special:RecentChanges]] and look out for vandals! Thanks [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:54, 18 June 2012 (EDT)
::AugustO, you haven't addressed the Alexa data about this matter. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 14:10, 25 July 2012 (EDT)

== Suggested correction ==

For some reason my computer is not allowing me to edit the Richard Dawkins article, so I'd like to make a suggestion for a small correction to it here on the talk page. Under the "Biography of Richard Dawkins" heading, there's a sub-heading titled "Daily Mail declared that Richard Dawkins' family fortune came from the slave trade." "''Daily Mail"'' should be italicized. Just a small correction — hopefully I'll fix this glitch and not have to suggest a small correction on the talk page again. Thanks! [[User:PaulDiFoglio|PaulDiFoglio]] 20:58, 20 June 2012 (EDT)
::I will make the correction. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 14:11, 25 July 2012 (EDT)

== Article Length ==

There's something that sits rather uncomfortably with me: the article on Richard Dawkins is longer than the article on Jesus. I'm sure, in Jesus life of over 2000 years (in human form, anyway) - he must have amassed more worth discussing than in Richard's significantly shorter existence. I mean, Jesus is God. Surely he should be more important and have more time and space devoted to him? This is where it gets really ironic. Wikipedia's article on Jesus is longer than their article on Dawkins. The ratio of their lengths is about the same on Wikipedia and Conservapedia, but flipped.

On a related note, the article on Cowardice and Atheism is just a descent into unsubstantiated rambling that serves no real purpose. Sure, discuss the general refusal of secular scientists to debate creationists/ID proponents - but don't suggest there is merely one motive, and that it is cowardice. It is no different than claiming all Hindus are cowards if some Hindus refused to debate some Christians (without any real treatment of their motives). Conservapedia would better serve its purpose by refraining from tiresome attacks.

Let me offer a different perspective: as most scientists regard ID as pseudoscience (Conservapedia's words, not mine), the most typical reason for refusal is in fact a desire not to lend credence to the notion of ID as science or as something that may viably be considered an alternative to evolution. Whether this position is agreed with or not is irrelevant - the fact of the matter is, this is the position they take. Youtube has plenty of videos of atheists debating creationists, both in filmed debates and back-and-forth video submissions from YouTube users.

I would be interested to hear the creationist/ID position on bacterial integration into human cells. For instance, mitochondria are bacteria that have integrated with every cell in our bodies. This is not conjecture - the genome is there, separate from our own, and its release from cells results in an immune response as the mitochondria are recognised as foreign and not self. The evolutionary take is generally that this is a form of rather extreme symbiosis - we gain significantly increased efficiency in producing ATP, the energy currency of the cell (and the bacteria get an easy ride). Is there an ID position on this? I presume there must be.

Before anyone admonishes me for asking these questions, I'd like to point out that I have not disclosed a single personal opinion in the above post, as I don't think they're relevant to my point. [[User:LucoDaw|LucoDaw]] 23:06, 5 July 2012 (EDT)
:LocoDaw, considering I have evidence of you removing one of my additions to Conservapedia's [[Christian apologetics]] article (see: http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Christian_apologetics&diff=prev&oldid=993002 ), I find your complaint about wanting more Christian content at Conservapedia rather odd. By the way, I reverted your censorship. Also, if you are concerned with the lack of more Christian content at Conservapedia why haven't your edits reflected this. I don't see you creating a lot of Christian content. Needless to say, you leave yourself wide open to the charge of hypocrisy. I thought there was a shortage of well referenced online material dealing with atheism and atheist figures in a fairly comprehensive manner on the internet which was not very low quality content (like most content written by atheists exhibits). So I created some content. Judging by the amount of views to my atheism related content, my theory about this shortage was confirmed. Since this time, some of the shortage has been alleviated as this article was created [http://creation.com/atheism atheism] and this resource was created: [http://www.truefreethinker.com/tag/atheism Atheism]
[[File:Shmuley Boteach.jpg|thumbnail|150px|right|Shmuley Boteach beat Richard Dawkins in a debate according to the student audience. Despite the fact that the debate occurred, Dawkins embarrassed himself by cowardly denying such a debate occurred. See: [[Richard Dawkins and Rabbi Shmuley Boteach]]
 
 
(see [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:RebShmuley.jpg license agreement]) ]]
:As far as the article length, you really haven't made a convincing case that any of the material is irrelevant. For example, [[Daniel Came]], an Oxford atheist, recently commented on the issue of Dawkins and cowardice. See: [[Atheism and cowardice]] So have [[William Lane Craig]] and [[Dinesh D'Souza]]. Rabbi Boteach who beat Dawkins in his first debate mentions that Dawkins has not agreed to a second debate. By the way, Dawkins denial that the video taped Boteach debate occurred was a total disgrace and a cowards way of not dealing with a debate he lost. According to the college student audience he lost the Boteach debate. For details see: [[Richard Dawkins and Rabbi Shmuley Boteach]]

:Furthermore, the material on Women's views of Dawkins was cited by a prominent online magazine through a women atheist author.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:20, 25 July 2012 (EDT)

== Dawkins charge that teaching religion to children is child abuse ==

"Richard Dawkins is perhaps one of the last men on Earth who should be discussing what is the right
and proper way to raise children, given that the number of his wives outnumber his offspring. But
while he can accept both child abandonment and childhood sexual abuse with dispassionate fortitude, it
is the horrible crime of raising children in the faith of their fathers that upsets him due to his belief that the fear of Hell is more psychologically damaging than childhood sexual abuse in the long term... Dr. Jonathan R.T. Davidson of the Duke University Medical Center is not quite so blasé about
the psychological damage of sexual abuse, as his 1996 study found that the chances of sexually abused
women attempting suicide were three times higher if they had been sexually abused before the age of
sixteen.28 In the same study, Davidson determined that women who had been sexually assaulted were
six times more likely to attempt suicide than those who had not. As for long-term effects, the American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry reported that 67 percent of women over fifty diagnosed with major depression who had been sexually abused as children had made multiple suicide attempts, compared with 27 percent of depressed women over fifty who had not been abused.29 The study also found that middle-aged women who were sexually abused were more likely to suffer at least one other major mental disorder and possess a lifetime history of substance abuse...A report in the American Journal of Psychiatry concluded that the religious faithful, most of whom were presumably raised religious, were much psychologically healthier than the irreligious. Religiously unaffiliated subjects had significantly more lifetime suicide attempts and more first degree relatives who committed suicide than subjects who endorsed a religious affiliation. . . In terms of clinical characteristics, religiously unaffiliated subjects had more lifetime impulsivity, aggression, and past substance use disorder.30 Vox Day, The Irrational Atheism, Darwin's Judas chapter [http://www.voxday.net/mart/TIA_free.pdf] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:06, 25 July 2012 (EDT)

== Table of Contents ==

The table of contents should be after the first paragraph, not half way down the page ! [[User:Dvergne|Dvergne]] 06:26, 25 October 2012 (EDT)
::Move up higher. Plus, reinserted some previous material. 06:40, 25 October 2012 (EDT)

== Citations ==

I noticed [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Richard_Dawkins&curid=103255&diff=1019763&oldid=1019761 this recent edit].

Is it appropriate for an editor (1) to cite a blog in an article? and (2) if so, is it still ok if it is ''his own'' blog?

It seems to me that allowing such citations is an invitation to editors to just go and create their own sources that say whatever they want. Such dishonest behaviour is not very conducive to the production of trustworthy articles. --[[User:ReginaldF|ReginaldF]] 20:53, 20 November 2012 (EST)
::Please tell which data you dispute that is in the cited material. I don't think you can do that. It seems like you just want to engage in the [[genetic fallacy]] which is illogical for you to do. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:14, 20 November 2012 (EST)
:::I think it is OK because Conservative would not cite a blog that was not reliable. Looking at the material, clearly it is cited to the standard required on Conservapedia. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 23:19, 20 November 2012 (EST)
::::I didn't say I disputed any particular data. I asked: Is it appropriate for an editor (1) to cite a blog in an article? and (2) if so, is it still ok if it is ''his own'' blog?
::::If you want to respond to my post could you please address what I actually wrote. --[[User:ReginaldF|ReginaldF]] 20:42, 19 December 2012 (EST)

Perhaps you can use use information from here: http://christianevidence.org/science/page/higgs_disagrees_with_dawkins_on_science_and_religion to add to the article--[[User:Tomqua|Tomqua]] 16:26, 13 June 2013 (EDT)

Overrated Sports Stars

2013-06-13T12:02:24Z

Tomqua:

The [[lamestream media]] like to promote athletes based not on skill, but for [[liberal]] reasons. Here's a growing list of the most overrated sports stars (notice how none are on the list of [[Essay:Greatest Conservative Sports Stars|Greatest Conservative Sports Stars]]):

#[[Andre Agassi]] — his rival [[Pete Sampras]] was far better, but Sampras is [[conservative]]. Agassi is a big donor to [[Democrat]] politicians.
#[[Lance Armstrong]] — favored by the [[liberal media]] because he publicly denied belief in [[God]], he possibly pulled off the biggest scam in the history of sports by "winning" the [[Tour-de-France]] seven times with what has been described as [http://cyclinginvestigation.usada.org/# "the most sophisticated, professionalized and successful doping program that sport has ever seen."]
#[[David Beckham]] - retired early to the weak American MLS league, so his wife could shop in Beverly Hills; his own [[British]] [[2012 Summer Olympics]] team did not even want him; his real skill seems to be in catering to the [[liberal media]].
#[[Kobe Bryant]] — was an overhyped bust at the [[2012 Summer Olympics]]; hasn't won a single title without super-coaching by Phil Jackson, who observes that Kobe is not on the high level of [[Michael Jordan]]; Kobe makes only 46% of his shots, and scores lots of points merely because he hogs the ball.
#Boomer Esiason — the [[liberal media]] like how he criticizes [[conservative]] [[Tim Tebow]], but Esiason couldn't get the job done himself when he was a player: Esiason failed to win championships despite expectations.
#[[LeBron James]] — over-promoted by the media to an absurd extent, LeBron has repeatedly underachieved in key playoff games and failed to win the scoring title despite constantly being given the ball. Christian star Kevin Durant, who outscored LeBron (and Kobe) in the Olympics, and other players are as good or better.
#[[Magic Johnson]] — lucky enough to play on [[Kareem Abdul-Jabbar]]'s Lakers to win some titles, but was crushed by [[Michael Jordan]] and the Bulls; no problem, Magic was a critic of President [[George H.W. Bush]], which thrilled liberals.
#*People look at him, and say, 'Hey, it's OK to get HIV because I'm living with it.' That is the wrong message. [http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-500202_162-57319698/20-years-since-magic-johnsons-hiv-stunner/]
#[[Peyton Manning]] — a [[quarterback]] who won only one [[NFL]] championship, despite being voted by the media and others to be NFL MVP 4 times, AFC Player of the Year 6 times, and Pro Bowler 11 times. The [[liberal media]] treated him like the Second Coming of [[Christ]] in order to oust [[conservative]] [[Tim Tebow]] from his leadership position in the [[swing state]] of [[Colorado]] prior to the [[Presidential Election 2012]]. After replacing Tebow, Manning eventually caused a humiliatingly early exit for the Broncos from the 2013 playoffs by throwing two big interceptions.
#[[Steve Nash]] — an [http://www.brightsideofthesun.com/2009/3/25/809516/steve-nash-on-media-bias-t outspoken liberal who supported Obama], Nash was chosen ''twice'' by the [[lamestream media]] as the [[NBA]] MVP despite never leading his team to even an NBA Finals. Even worse, the former coach of Nash was then hired by the Lakers in late 2012, rather than a far better coach who was available.
#[[Mark Sanchez]] — the [[New York Jets]] [[quarterback]] is being touted as the team's best QB over [[conservative]] [[Christian]] [[Tim Tebow]] despite falling apart at the end of the 2011–12 season and continuing to perform poorly in the 2012-2013 season. Now that Tebow's on-board, [[liberals]] are championing the former [[USC]] star as the superior player despite his mediocre play throughout his career.
#[[Tiger Woods]] — Hasn't won a major golf tournament in four years, and yet he's still the only one liberals want to talk about while reporting on tournaments. Had a spectacular early career, but his performances got worse and worse due to his womanizing and partying lifestyle. Has never attained his promise.
#[[Danica Patrick]] - Has won a single race in the Indy Car series, but has yet to win a race in either the NASCAR Sprint Cup or Nationwide series, finishing no higher than fourth, although ESPN promotes her first and foremost when showing highlights of the NASCAR races in which she participates. The lamestream media adores her for her participation in controversial GoDaddy television advertisements.
#[[Wayne Rooney]] - Burst onto the scene as a 16 year old and called "The English Pele". 10 years on and he has still failed to fulfill his potential, especially at international level, and still behaves like a childish immature 16 year old.
#[[Ronaldinho]] - looked like a wonderful player in early years, but quickly became overweight due to his 'partying' lifestyle. Fired from minor Brazilian team, he declared he's finally "just going to party"
#[[Cristiano Ronaldo]] - his spectacular talents have been ruined by his self-obsession, vanity and cravings of celebrity. He is now officially "sad", despite being one of the luckiest men alive.
#[[Lewis Hamilton]] - [[Affirmative Action]] race driver.
#[[Lionel Messi]] - Stands accused of criminal tax evasion.
#[[Usain Bolt]] - Will never run the times of 2009 again.
#[[Sebastian Vettel]] - Beneath the nice guy exterior lies a deceitful, win at all costs person who thinks he is above following orders.

== See also ==

*[[Conservapedia Proven Right]]

[[Category:sports]]