Difference between revisions of "Talk:Atheism and obesity"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(Ad Hominem Abusive)
(Obesity article)
Line 175: Line 175:
:::::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)
:::::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)
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==

Revision as of 16:06, 14 December 2011

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? JamesTimmons 23:04, 1 January 2011 (EST)

James, are you familiar with the concept of "sample size"? Assuming "a couple" means two, as it does in proper American English, you know three people who are supposedly atheists. Thousands identify as atheists. Is three out of thousands really a sample size worthy of any consideration? (Especially coming from an online anonymous source of school-going age) ???--ADW

I'm not changing the article here, so I don't need any outside sources for anything I've said here, I'm just stating an observation. 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?--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. RkWilko 23:08, 2 January 2011 (EST)
There sure are a lot of atheists who are thin skinned about the subject of fat atheists. 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? 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. --Tylero 16:54, 6 January 2011 (EST)

Fixed. I wrote: While many 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. 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 is madness. 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? 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. conservative 21:37, 11 January 2011 (EST)


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!--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: [1] RodgerW 08:34, 19 March 2011 (EDT)

As an extra note I just found a daily mail article on it: [2] 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.[3] 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.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-
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. 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. AngusT 14:15, 25 March 2011 (EDT)
Eric, what is truly childish is you trying to compare the 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 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 some of the modern apostles of atheism such as PZ Myers. And if you want to play the geography game like some atheist "blag hag", I would remind you that 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 the much larger Gallup study and other data Conservapedia brought forth if you were an overweight atheist blogger at scienceblogs.com who had his brain impaired due to being overweight, but please do not do it here. 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 style over substance fallacy to criticize me. Of course, this provides additional data that atheists are often illogical. Atheism is madness! Evolutionism is madness as well. 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? 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. 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 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, please provide proof and evidence that atheism is true. Christendom has certainly provided 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. 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? 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 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 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. WilliamB1 14:19, 27 March 2011 (EDT)

I don't see any valid objections to 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!--Andy Schlafly 15:13, 27 March 2011 (EDT)
It appears as if some atheists want to engage in the fallacy of exclusion and not address the non-Gallup data that Conservapedia provided. It also appears as if someone wants to engage in the 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, 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" (some of whom are obese and subject to a greater chance of succumbing to their mortality} might be reduced somewhat. 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. 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! 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? 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. conservative 22:24, 27 March 2011 (EDT)
Perhaps you could write the lab and ask them to Release the Data. 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. 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.[4]

It does appear that there are some church people in less affluent areas that are starting to become part of the solution:

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[5] - 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 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 other data Conservapedia has brought forth and you trying to show equivalency with your much smaller NorthWestern University study. conservative 16:05, 19 April 2011 (EDT)

Additional content

While I feel obesity is a Western culture phenom, there are many more examples of obese atheists to add. Try a search for celebrity atheists and you'll be quite surprised. --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.[6] However, unlike atheists, Christians have lots of songs including dance music. Indian Christian dancers seem to be fairly immune to obesity. Please see: Penn Jillette's walrus slide vs. thin Christian lady dancers 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.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 American Atheists board of directors and the make up of the New Atheism leadership. 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).

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 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. 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. conservative 10:02, 10 May 2011 (EDT)

Obese atheists wax museum

I am considering opening up an obese atheists wax museum. :) Any thoughts? :) conservative 10:45, 5 May 2011 (EDT)

What would the entrance fee be? 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 HERE. I would feel sorry for the bees having to do that much work for the wax that would be needed. conservative 14:26, 5 May 2011 (EDT)

My intentions.

This was supposed to be a message to user:conservative but I cannot edit his page for some reason so I'll mention it here. I am a Christian and have been interested in learning more about creationism (which is how I found Conservapedia). However I find your obesity and atheism series to be purile at best. This is no indictment of you as a person, conservative, merely that I think this is the wrong way to attack atheism. Let us fight on what we know are the logic failings of atheism insteadx of sneering about a biologist that appears slightly overweight. Remembering that the latest statistics state nearly half of the population in the US are overweight....as far as I know atheists are in the minority in the US hence obesity afflicts people indescriminate of religious belief (yes, I classify atheism as a religious belief). Let us have an intellectual victory, this isn't a beauty contest. I am hoping to create a rebuttal essay, my intentions are to bring forward a dissenting view. Please feel free to engage me in debate or throw any questions my way. MaxFletcher 00:56, 28 May 2011 (EDT)

A helpful tip. I would recommend using the Firefox browser to edit Conservapedia as it has a spelling checker which would aid you in the spelling of words such as puerile. Second, the Conservapedia atheism article describes atheism and related matters (effects, causes, prominent figures current in atheism and atheist history, etc.). I realize that some people may become upset if reality "attacks" atheism, however. Next, is 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. 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, 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. 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? --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. 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. 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. --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. conservative 06:10, 7 June 2011 (EDT)


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. --Jimmyray 08:25, 8 June 2011 (EDT)

Thanks, much appreciated. I removed the material. conservative 15:09, 8 June 2011 (EDT)

a reply from penn jillette

I just watched this video. He addresses this article. I should warn, though, that it is laced with profanity.--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." 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. 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 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. 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, 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. MaxFletcher 19:07, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
Removed redirect that was done by a vandal. Conservative 19:12, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
Max, please consider learning more about the Generalized linear model and multi-variable statistical analysis. 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). MaxFletcher 19:18, 24 July 2011 (EDT)

Thank you for the removal of the redirect. 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.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. 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. 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."[7] 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. 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. 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. 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. Conservative 16:49, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
The study does not mention atheism nor obesity. The study shows no link between the two. 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? --BradleyS 17:08, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
Conservative asked about a factual error and I pointed one out. Who mentioned Andy or censorship? 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? --BradleyS 17:25, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
What fact? This who page is based on a Gallup study that mentions neither obesity or atheism. 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. Conservative 19:33, 27 July 2011 (EDT)

Your commentary does not match what the study says - your commentary is factually in error. MaxFletcher 19:35, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
Max, I suggest getting a new optometrist. 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. 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. Conservative 12:12, 30 July 2011 (EDT)
  • The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold a glutton, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans[1] and sinners. But wisdom is justified of her children. (Matt 11:19) Rob Smith 12:20, 30 July 2011 (EDT)
  1. publicans were collaborators with the enemy, Jews who collected taxes from Jews to support the Roman occupation troops.

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. 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. 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. Nate 14:29, 30 July 2011 (EDT)


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."--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. 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. --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. 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. --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? 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 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 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. --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. 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.--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. This song reminds me of many whiners and pretenders concerning this article.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. 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. Conservative 22:10, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
But what is it based on? Because the Gallup study does not support the conclusion. MaxFletcher 22:13, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
I am thinking of adding HappyCabbie as an example of a overweight YouTube atheist. 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.[8][9][10] :) 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. 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).--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. Nate 23:18, 3 August 2011 (EDT)

Via several weird redirected talk pages...

Ken, you realize the reason Penn won't debate you is that he suspects you are a parodist extraordinaire, right? It's not because he is a bunny, or a burning building, it's because he thinks you edit here to discredit CP. Can you write an essay that proves this wrong?

Best regards,

Huw 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 Conservative 21:26, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
Essay: This year's best atheist debaters 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...
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...
RonLar 08:54, 4 August 2011 (EDT)
RonLar, I think you are an atheist/evolutionist black knight and can safely be ignored. 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!
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!
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 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. :) 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)
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. --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. 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... 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?--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, 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. --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? 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. --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. 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. --SamCoulter 21:37, 13 September 2011 (EDT)

Max, before you invoke mob rule, why don't you point to a single factual error in the article first? 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! 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. 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. :) 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. MaxFletcher 01:29, 14 September 2011 (EDT)

Max, we both know you found nothing. 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. --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. 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. --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. 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. 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. 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. 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. MaxFletcher 23:15, 14 September 2011 (EDT)

Max, you need help that I cannot provide and I suggest going to a optometrist. 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. 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 ? --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.Conservative 02:21, 15 September 2011 (EDT)
Obesity by states: [11]. 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: [12]. Personnaly I believe that you can be fat or fit whether you are a christian, an atheist, a buddhist or whatever you want.--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. --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. 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.--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". 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 ?--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. --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. 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. --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."[13] 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? 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. --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. 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. --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. --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. 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. --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 overweight? 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. (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." [14] The Mayo Clinic which has a high reputation for giving sound health advice concurs with this figure. [15] 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. 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. --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. 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).--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. --SharonW 15:28, 22 September 2011 (EDT)

Might be of interest

An interesting comparison of dietary habits. 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. 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. 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."[16] 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. [17] 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. :) 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.--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." [18] 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 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 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.--ARamis 19:55, 18 September 2011 (EDT)

Do you believe that the atheist Penn Jillette has more 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 Conservative 19:58, 18 September 2011 (EDT)

Conservative, what does machismo have to do with obesity ?--ARamis 20:00, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
Yes, I am slightly confused also. MaxFletcher 20:02, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
Atheists and liberals often have great difficulty understanding the concept of machismo. :) Conservative 20:06, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
Well I am neither and I fail to see the relevance to this discussion. MaxFletcher 20:07, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
"I like 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 Conservative 20:26, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
I'm sorry? I still don't understand. 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. :) [19] Conservative 20:33, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
Why are you obsessed with Stallone today? 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 machismo than the overweight atheist Penn Jillette. :) See also: Sye Ten Bruggencate's debate challenge to atheist Penn Jillette 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. --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 ?--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. --SharonW 22:02, 18 September 2011 (EDT)

Bruce Lee definitely had machismo! Stallone became a catholic in 1996. MaxFletcher 22:04, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
Did he? By the way, "...it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment." - Hebrews 9:27 Conservative 22:07, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
What does that mean ?--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. 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? Conservative 00:23, 19 September 2011 (EDT)

Probably hard to tell when basing on mere looks. 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) ?--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. :) Conservative 01:04, 19 September 2011 (EDT)

Wow, that's a pretty good argument!--ARamis 01:07, 19 September 2011 (EDT)

You know,

the debate here was never finished--CamilleT 21:56, 18 September 2011 (EDT)

I did respond. Have you contacted your representatives yet? 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:

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

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! Kevin Davis 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! Kevin Davis Talk 23:06, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
Thanks. Conservative 00:19, 19 September 2011 (EDT)
Thank you for correcting it! Kevin Davis 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 '', and I mistook those for quotes. Thus, my previous comment is irrelevant. Thanks! Kevin Davis 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, MaxFletcher 18:00, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

Hello? MaxFletcher 20:23, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
I still think you are an atheist and evolutionist and you know my policy about debating obscure atheist rather than non-obscure atheist. 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? 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. --SteveK 01:04, 29 September 2011 (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? Conservative 21:36, 27 October 2011 (EDT)

Ad Hominem Abusive

This page is guilty of a major logical fallacy, that is, the ad hominem abusive [20]. 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) --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. 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%?. 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. --Swinefish 23:07, 3 November 2011 (EDT)
You can leave it. You redefining a fallacy and it being pointed out was useful. Conservative 17:31, 4 November 2011 (EDT)