Talk:Atheism and obesity

From Conservapedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Conservative (Talk | contribs) at 06:26, September 18, 2011. It may differ significantly from current revision.

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

Archive1

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)

Essay: This year's best atheist debaters Conservative 07:17, 4 August 2011 (EDT)
Could you give us an example where you, Conservative, debated someone about Atheism, Evolution, etc.? On the talk-pages I've seen so far you havn't won any discussion...
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: [1]. 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: [2]. 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)

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."[3] 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." [4] The Mayo Clinic which has a high reputation for giving sound health advice concurs with this figure. [5] 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)