Virtually every religion that has existed, or exists today, strongly condemns gluttony. Given that religions evolve culturally over hundreds of years, there’s probably a good reason why all of them shame fatties.
Before we talk about these reasons, here’s a quick breakdown of the world’s major religions.
Christianity And Judaism – On Gluttony
Do not join those who drink too much wine
or gorge themselves on meat,
for drunkards and gluttons become poor,
and drowsiness clothes them in rags.
Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your bodies.
The Old Testament says fatties are losers and the New Testament thinks fatties are a disgrace to God. ‘Nuff said.
Islam – On Gluttony
The entire month of Ramadan is dedicated to fasting. Fasting is a regular and important feature of Islam that teaches self-control and self-respect:
O you who have believed, decreed upon you is fasting as it was decreed upon those before you that you may become righteous – (link)
[Fasting for] a limited number of days. So whoever among you is ill or on a journey [during them] – then an equal number of days [are to be made up]. And upon those who are able [to fast, but with hardship] – a ransom [as substitute] of feeding a poor person [each day]. And whoever volunteers excess – it is better for him. But to fast is best for you, if you only knew. (link)
If only, if only our American fatties knew that to fast (i.e. abstain from eating) is best for them. If they only knew.
Buddhism – On Gluttony
Buddhists believe that avoiding attachment, translated as acquisition below, to any worldly thing is the way of wisdom and peace.
“Now, when a monk — maintaining restraint over the six spheres of contact, knowing that ‘Acquisition is the root of stress’ — is free from acquisition, released in the total ending of acquisition, it’s not possible that, with regard to acquisition, he would stir his body or arouse his mind. (link)
Fatties need to lose their attachment to 7/11, McDonald’s, Wendy’s, Burger King, and KFC.
Atheism – On Gluttony
So, having established that the world’s major regions all believe fat is evil, what do atheists up doing?
GALLUP – Very Religion Americans Lead Healthier Lives
Is it any surprise? With nothing left to believe in, atheists will fill up their spiritual void with cheap processed food and confectionery sugars. Just look at the non-believers and see for yourself:
Body fat percentage: 50%
Body fat percentage: 35%
Body fat percentage: 70%
Hell, there are even blogs dedicated to being a fat atheist. I don’t think any of this is a coincidence. I think the successful religions have been successful precisely because they make people take care of themselves, and most importantly, by keeping women slim it attracts more men to the religion. Meanwhile, atheism leads to despair and big-waistlines.
Read Next: The American Woman Has Hit An All-Time Low
Get ready for the massacre in the comment section
OT. Justine Arreche, feminist, lies down on bar, much later anti-slut rationalization triggers attempt to destroy a man’s career and gain moar feminist cred.
http://blogjustine.wordpress.com/2013/10/12/because-it-needs-to-be-said/
“At some point, it was suggested that I do a body shot. I’ve never done one in my life but at the insistence of many people, attendees and bartenders I decided to lay on the bar. I just wanted to prove myself as one of the gang. Someone who was up for anything. I cannot explain to men how hard it is being a woman trying to play it cool in an industry of men. I want everyone to think I’m cool and relaxed so I try and just play by their rules. Regardless I got on the bar and lifted my shirt as far as I was comfortable. To the absolute shock of my mental capacity, Joe, my hiring manager, the owner of my company, my direct boss was the one who ended up doing the shot off me. That alone made me uncomfortable and here is where I’m going to start getting vague because the rest is just too painful to detail out.”
Commenter ANON is not buying it: “You justine are no victim. You are a predator. And your prey is the men you work with. Who, exactly, “suggested” you do the body shot? Your post, so explicit, that it names names, yet you don’t know who suggested you lay in front of your co-workers and lift up your shirt?”
White knights are the biggest supporters of ASD:
Good article – an interesting look at religions at an that I had not previously considered.
Stay away from the Flying Spaghetti Monster if you are on a low carb diet
Did you really have to take a cheap shot at atheists? I mean, I knew that this site was traditionally conservative, but the disdain for homosexuals and atheists is irrational and makes people like me question our association with this site.
I think you should take this with a pinch of salt. lol.
I don’t see dumping on faggots and those who think we came out of randomness “just because” to be irrational.
what nonsense. read any book about animal behavior and you’ll be confronted with the inescapable truth that homosexual behavior occurs among countless species, especially mammalian species. whether we like or not, countless species have a small minority who engage in same-sex acts. period.
so when you witness a beta chimpanzee or bonobo mounting another male, would you condemn him? surely not!
i too dislike the relentless homosexual agenda in the US, but calling gays “faggots” is rather pathetic – and it reminds me of the unlettered rants of middle school boys
Sure, I’d condemn a filthy beast, just like I’d kick a dog humping my couch, though if you weren’t so brainwashed by the gay lobby you’d note that there are no monkeys so depraved as to be exclusively homosexual.
not brainwashed by the gay lobby. rather, educated by biologists. as i wrote above, i reject the relentless gay agenda in the US. it is relentless and annoying. but when they argue that homosexual behavior has occurred within our species in every era, in every society, they are right.
read about bonobos, an ape species that are FULLY bi-sexual. they happen to be our closest primate cousins.
i would suggest that you read the following biologists and ethologists, who spent their careers studying this matter:
konrad lorenz
lamarck
tinbergen.
and oh, darwin
whether we like or not, countless species have a small minority who engage in same-sex acts. period.
Such phenomena are otherwise known as “abnormal”. Thanks for playing.
yes. it is most definitely abnormal in the context of a species that is seeking to reproduce and survive.
but the fact that it occurs across the animal kingdom, albeit in a small minority, makes it entirely natural. in other words, this behavior occurs in nature for reasons. why? we don’t yet fully understand.
so let’s leave it to science and reason to explain this “abnormal” phenomenon.
So does cannibalism.
Let’s eat the corn-fed fat asses.
You’re right, it is natural. Just like being fat, which also occurs across the animal kingdom and all cultures. Wait a sec… Does the fact that something occurs maybe not mean that it’s good?
So we are taking moral lessons from animals now?
Setting the bar high aren’t ya?
Small minorities of individuals kill, steal and destroy.. doesn’t make it right does it?
It’s not “[email protected]” it should be sodomites.
Wait until you get into the real world, you know, when you get OUT of university, and interact with real men and women who are gay and don’t fit your ideal stereotyped view of how gays act.
I may be slightly effeminate, but my partner? We’ve been together over ten years. He has served in Afghanistan in the Australian Army. He’s more manly than most of you put together.
So grow a fecking brain and stop ‘dumping’ on ‘faggots’, you small minded little boy.
Faggot is a perfectly functional word. It signifies a male who flagrantly disregards and disrespects the imperatives of masculinity.
You’re right that not all homosexuals are faggots, but the vast majority are. And the public face of homosexuality (the one that the LGBTQ lobby spends millions if not billions of dollars a year to broadcast worldwide) is pure, unadulterated faggotry. It does nothing but corrode masculine norms, promote feminist genderqueer bullshit, and undermine Western normalcy.
It’s perfectly reasonable that the average man is hostile to faggotry; faggotry is hostile to him.
It is unfortunate that outliers (like Jack Donovan) occasionally get tarred with the same brush that faggots do, but it’s understandable. Your community does a fantastic job of mocking, booing, and antagonizing hetero males so you’ll have to excuse is if we don’t pay enough attention to the LGBTQ world to make such fine distinctions.
Take a look at your atheist comrades: 9 out of 10 are feminists. Find the nearest river and either drown or be baptized
There’s nothing irrational about disdaining homosexuals or atheists. In fact, it’s quite rational: it’s protective in nature.
LOL the face of atheism is fat nerds who say the same thing and think they are freethinkers. The only athiests I respect are those who argue against religion by pointing out its contradiction with science, not by indciting western civilization along with it. Do these “freethinkers” believe in reason, or do they just hate their parents?
But how can you disprove religion with science ? That is assuming science is correct in the first place. Don’t get me wrong …. a lot of religious stuff is outright ridiculous. But do u really believe the Universe was created through a ” Big Bang” and through billions of years everything we have now just accidentally evolved from there ? Atheists are just as ridiculous as Christians by believing in unbelievable stuff.
Science isn’t a wacky belief, it’s a process to find an answer by the application of logic. Science has proven the big bang is possible. I am still waiting for the talking snake, people who live to be 900, and getting smited because of my polyester blend Tee shirt.
don’t forget the burning bush and the sacred meteorite in mecca.
“[science is] a process to find an answer by the application of logic”
No it’s not. That’s philosophy. Science is about finding answers through the scientific method, which is basically proving a hypothesis through repeated observation.
You can’t expect the average atheist to actually know what science is. He has the same relationship to science that the average believer has to scripture, i.e. he doesn’t know the first thing about it but he’s pretty damn sure it’s the repository of Absolute Truth.
First you made me laugh, then you made me sad. Spot on about most believers.
No, that is not what science is. Science is a process used to explain observed phenomena through rigorous application of repeatable tests designed to disprove (not to prove) a given hypothesis. When all tests have failed to disprove a hypothesis, the scientist is left only with the option to accept the hypothesis as correct.
“accept the hypothesis as correct” = prove
“rigorous application of repeatable tests” = repeated observation
Sorry, but no. Technically speaking, the hypothesis is never “proved”, it is only ever “not disproved”. This is an important distinction and one of the things that makes the scientific method as useful as it is. Any scientist worth their salt will never say that anything is known with absolute certainty (the connotation of “prove”). Scientists are always collecting new data, looking at problems from new angles, and expanding our understanding of the observable universe. The scientific method is designed to always keep the door open for the possibility of new data that changes our understanding. It would be more accurate to say, “Tentatively accept as correct”, however. But this does not have the same meaning as proving something.
I still find the the use of the word observation to be problematic because observation is passive and doesn’t imply any understanding of what has been observed. I can observe the sun rise and set every day of my life but that doesn’t say anything about testing nor understanding that the sun does not actually move, but that it is the earth that moves and gives the appearance of the sun moving.
If you define prove as 100% certainty, then nothing in the world has ever been proved. And as Cicero said on such words: “Let them, then, keep this word ‘wisdom’ to themselves. Everybody is irritated by it; no one understands what it means. Let them but grant that the men I mentioned were ‘good.’ No, they won’t do that either. No one but the ‘wise’ can be allowed that title, say they. Well, then, let us dismiss them and manage as best we may with our own poor mother wit, as the phrase is.”
As to the word observation, the scientific method can most certainly be applied inappropriately.
And as an interesting side note, as space is relative, wouldn’t it actually be more correct to say that as our point of reference is the earth, that the sun does revolve around the earth, while the planet itself is still?
In a scientific context, one would indeed say that nothing is ever proved with absolute certainty. The scientist should always leave open the possibility that with new information/facts, understanding can change.
If we want to be precise, then we would say the earth and sun revolve around their mutual center of mass. For simplicity sake it’s easier to understand that center (the barycenter) as being the sun. The same is also true of the earth and moon. So no, one could not say the sun orbits the sun based on relativity. Well, one could say it, but it would be incorrect.
The big bang has a mass of evidence to support it, and the process of evolution is not just about accidents, its about what works. You should try and educate yourself more.
All the atheists should watch this. Watch their champion losing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MZa0otVkmK4
“To follow Kant one must also understand something about the Scottish philosopher David Hume. Hume had previously submitted that if one follows the strictest rules of logical induction and deduction from experience to determine the true nature of the world, one must arrive at certain conclusions. His reasoning followed lines that would result from answers to this question: Suppose a child is born devoid of all senses; he has no sight, no hearing, no touch, no smell, no taste…nothing. There’s no way whatsoever for him to receive any sensations from the outside world. And suppose this child is fed intravenously and otherwise attended to and kept alive for eighteen years in this state of existence. The question is then asked: Does this eighteen-year-old person have a thought in his head? If
so, where does it come from? How does he get it?
Hume would have answered that the eighteen-year-old had no thoughts whatsoever, and in giving this answer would have defined
himself as an empiricist, one who believes all knowledge is derived exclusively from the senses. The scientific method of experimentation is carefully controlled empiricism. Common sense today is empiricism, since an overwhelming majority would agree with Hume, even though in other cultures and other times a majority might have differed.
The first problem of empiricism, if empiricism is believed, concerns the nature of “substance.” If all our knowledge comes from sensory data, what exactly is this substance which is supposed to give off the sensory data itself? If you try to imagine what this substance is, apart from what is sensed, you’ll find yourself thinking about nothing whatsoever.
Since all knowledge comes from sensory impressions and since there’s no sensory impression of substance itself, it follows logically
that there is no knowledge of substance. It’s just something we imagine. It’s entirely within our own minds. The idea that there’s
something out there giving off the properties we perceive is just another of those common-sense notions similar to the common-sense notion children have that the earth is flat and parallel lines never meet.
Secondly, if one starts with the premise that all our knowledge comes to us through our senses, one must ask, From what sense data is our knowledge of causation received? In other words, what is the scientific empirical basis of causation itself?
Hume’s answer is “None.” There’s no evidence for causation in our sensations. Like substance, it’s just something we imagine when
one thing repeatedly follows another. It has no real existence in the world we observe. If one accepts the premise that all knowledge comes to us through our senses, Hume says, then one must logically conclude that both “Nature” and “Nature’s laws” are creations of
our own imagination.”
Yeah this one would really piss off fat atheist liberals.
They subscribe to a system of rule that fucks with the economy to buy votes. They walk around all day indulging in self loathing. And religiously believe in a scientific process that is nothing more than the unique collective imprint of a skewed, manipulation of truth in a society out of touch with who they are.
Don’t forget to laugh at their inevitable blustering exasperation.
Your entire argument is built on the assumption that David Hume is correct and that all knowledge is derived from the senses. Nothing you said has any value until you first demonstrate that Hume is correct. It’s an Argument from Authority: “Hume said it so it’s correct”. I have no idea how you made the leap from “Empiricism is bullshit” to “Liberals economic beliefs are bullshit”. Atheism and Liberalism have nothing to do with one another.
Actually they are connected to each other.
Atheism seeks to attack traditions and patriarchs, because it is another form of Satanism and rebellion against righteous authority.
As the famous Satanist Alister Crowley said..
“Do what thou wilt shall be whole of the law”
Liberalism seeks to replace religion with libertine/hedonistic lifestyle to dumb down the sheep and introduce government rule using Liberal political correctness to attack the opposition.
Extreme form of liberalism = Communism
Extreme form of republicanism = Totalitarian
Complete and utter nonsense.
LaVeyan Satanism, often referred to simply as Satanism among most adherents, is a tradition in Satanism founded in 1966 by Anton LaVey. Its teachings are based on individualism, epicureanism[1] and “eye for an eye” morality, drawing influences from the rituals and ceremonies of occultist Aleister Crowley and the philosophies of Friedrich Nietzsche and Ayn Rand.[2] Employing Crowley’s terminology, its adherents define Satanism as a “Left-Hand Path” religion and philosophy, rejecting traditional “Right-Hand Path” religions such as Christianity and Wicca for their perceived denial of life, and, as in Christianity, emphasis on abstinence, and unnecessary guilt.
Anton LaVey established Satanism’s first and largest religious organization, the Church of Satan, in 1966, and codified Satanic beliefs and practices in The Satanic Bible in 1969.
Source: Wikipedia + Official website
“And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” John 8:32
I fail to see how your response makes the point. Atheism doesn’t seek to do anything. Atheism is plainly and simply a lack of belief in any gods. A- meaning without, and theist meaning god. Without god or gods. There is no agenda, ideology, or political affiliation associated with atheism.
You can quote all the facts you like about Anton LaVey and Satanism but that has absolutely no relationship to atheism. You are lumping the two together because they aren’t your particular brand of belief but you are making a connection that isn’t there.
Your references are so confused it’s hard to follow your logic.
Atheism and Satanism are in no way connected. As an atheist I don’t believe in Satan any more than I believe in God. Satanists are just as misguided as Christians and other theists. And Alister Crowley has absolutely no relevance to atheism whatsoever. He was a cook as far as I can tell.
Ayn Rand was emphatically NOT a liberal. She was a
conservative, staunch capitalist, and would most likely be considered a Libertarian today. Ayn Rand was also a cook as far as I can tell. She and Crowley do have that in common but that has nothing to do with their beliefs about god, only that they were probably both narcissists.
There probably are more liberal atheists than conservative atheists, but there are plenty of Libertarian atheists too.
Atheists, at least, believe they can be wrong. Christians on the other hand think they know the absolute truth. There is some evidence for the Big Bang Theory, which is why I believe it. BUT I still know it could be totally wrong. I also know that Christianity could be 100% right. You never know. I don’t think it matters if you are Atheist, Christian, or any other religion, as long as you change your beliefs according to where there is evidence, or no evidence. I’m Atheist, and my belief changes all the time. Right now, I don’t believe in a God, but I do believe in the after life.
Atheism and the big bang have nothing to do with one another. Atheism is simply a lack of belief in any gods. How the universe came into being is cosmology, not atheism.
I’m a not religious person, I would say that I’m an atheist, but I’m just a “believer” of naturalism. And I agree, that a lot of atheist, specially here in Europe are as dogmatic as a True Believer can be. For most is just an antagonist position to conservatives, and that ideological “pack” includes being an atheist (and equalist and all the PC BS), and there are lot of them that are as dumb as dirt. You just need to join an atheist spanish Facebook group for example and see the pathetical intellectual level of most people there.
I like the point made in the article about self-control, but it’s possible to be atheist and not be a face-stuffing disgrace to humanity.
It all comes down to personality. Despite what die hard atheists like to believe, there are highly intelligent and highly religious people who have great self control and self dicipline, and there are atheists who are really just materials with low IQs and low self control.
I’m an atheist and I condemn gluttony. I also know how to spell atheist.
Well I would imagine TheAmazingAtheist condemns gluttony too but that doesn’t stop him. xD
Got ’em! He actually made a video glorifying being fat
So are you going to release a doctrine or papal bull condemning…
Oh wait.
Seems like you’re stretching it a bit here, but I found it amusing.
“With nothing left to believe in, atheists will fill up their spiritual void with cheap processed food and confectionery sugars.”
Nothing left to believe in? That’s fairly ignorant about Atheism bro.
“spiritual void” like the soul, is a myth.
Well I guess fat ass atheists find out sooner than clean living disciplined religious people.
The core idea behind empiricism is that perception is the window to
reality, and that any understanding of reality must be perceptually
confirmed.
People say that seeing is believing. But seeing is not believing;
thinking is believing. Seeing is knowing; everything else is emotive
hope, probabilistic guess or reasoned theory.
Neitzsche have put forward the argument that without sensory input of any kind, a man would fail to be Christian, and that religious belief is conditional upon personal circumstances. Their view is partially correct. Men inherit their faith from their ancestors and certainly, for the unreflective man, faith is a circumstantial habituated practice.
The reflective man however has a problem. He questions and challenges his faith, and if logically consistent, finds that there is nothing in the Universe which supports his view. Thieves prosper, the good are murdered, and the completely innocent suffer tremendously. Empirically, there is no way he can confirm that Gay Marriage and Adultery are objectively wrong. Statistically he may be able to find data that supports a respective religious vision, but he cannot find any data the confirms a creed. As commentators Brockmann and Nietzsche imply, ought cannot be derived from is and hence the implication that transcendent truths are unknowable, and therefore arbitrary fairy stories; cognitive products of the imagination for whatever reason.
They are, of course, logically correct. And yet they are wrong.
Because their understanding of the human perceptual capacity is in error.
I wish to illustrate what I mean by starting off with a passage of
biblical text. Not because I want them to believe in the veracity of the Bible, but because the text succinctly explains the difference between believers and non-believers and problem of Modernity.
As it is written: God hath given them the spirit of insensibility;
eyes that they should not see; and ears that they should not hear,
until this present day.
(Romans 11:8 Douay-Rheims)
Note the term insensibility, the inability to sense or perceive.This
is not a play on words, as different translations of text refer to same
phenomenon. The Christian fathers did not think of faith as a
cognitive process but a sensory modality. In their view, unbelief was not the product of faulty thinking, it was the product of insensibility; a perceptual failure.
To them, faith was a sixth sense; an eye or ear-like faculty which
allowed us to perceive non-physical realities. When the Christian
fathers asserted that men should not commit adultery, they were not plucking something out of thin air or making a rational calculation based up their value preferences; they were being empirical.
The atheist mistake is in assuming that the divisions amongst the
religious are due to differing rationalizations instead of differing
interpretations. To use our nearly blind group of men analogy, the
atheist or rationalist blind man thinks that the man affected with the
severe cataracts is making things up, whilst the man with the cataract is trying to understand what is going on. If you were to take a group of men with cataracts and present them with a the image of a person at a distance, one will say its Fred, some will say its Bill and the others will say its Judy, they will all know that they have percieved something even if they are not sure what it is, but the blind men, being unable to perceive, will assume that the cataract affected, are making things up.
What separates the Moderns from the rest of humanity is in this
perception of “something else” beyond the five-sense barrier. And
Christians ,in particular, should understand that from the atheist
perspective (those who lack the faith sense), religion is logically
ridiculous. And it is this fact that poses a huge practical problem for
conservatives and it also gives an inkling of what we are up against.
When Christopher Hitchins or his ilk argue that faith is just
superstition and “fairy stories”, they are absolutely correct from their objective point of view. You see, Hitchins et al, live their life
assuming with certitude, that there is no such thing as “faith-sight”
and any statements with regard to “faith-colours or forms” are
arbitrary. The honest ones amongst them are like blind men, who truly and honestly believe that there is no such thing as sight, and any statements regarding such are rubbish. Trying to convince these men, by rational argument, of the existence of transcendent moralities is by logical necessity, going to fail. In order to get the get the militant atheists on side you’ve got to get them to “see”. They literally can’t think their way towards religion because
good thinking without faith is irreligious. Or to put it another way,
arguing with them is like arguing with a blind man about the nature of colour, there is no way you can get him to “see” red.
This “faith-sense”, not being a renationalisation process, cannot
therefore be experienced by acts of rationalization. Blind people
cannot experience colours by study or by rational argument; they have to sense them.
The only way past this impasse is by some way granting them the
ability to “see”. The Church fathers also recognised that this faith
sense was not “intrinsic” to our being but was rather a bestowed gift of God.* That means petitionary prayer; asking God to give our enemies “sight”. This is why there will be no HBD or atheistic conservative revival (they may be able to give the appearance of conservative revival but it will eventually degenerate into leftist decay, it’s a movement trying to empty a bathtub with a seive). They are operating within the same sensory frame of reference as do the atheists.
The West is doomed unless men start praying to God for revival
and conversion of their enemies. When the monasteries start
reappearing, that’s when you know it’ll all be right.
Many thanks to Social Pathologist.
Although the article is meme saturated and oversimplified a little, Samseau is absolutely right !!!! Atheism has just become just another religion with the most highly combative, elitist, hypocritical, intolerant, condescending,members
i’ve ever seen. Truth is … whether you subscribe to evolution or
creationism, there is not enough proof for either. But i choose Religion
for the simple fact that when practiced properly , it gives people
guidance, meaning and solace during hard times while keeping many human vices & degenerate behavior in check.
The most religious countries in the world , have the lowest rates of
suicide, depression, anxiety and other mental disorders. How can you be
crazy in the head when you know that there is a higher power who has a
plan for you and looks after your interests.
Atheism on the
other hand … lool … where do i even start ? Lets just say every
self-proclaimed in your face atheist i know is some kind of broke loser
who doesn’t even lift!
Online upside is that atheist bitches are more slutty than Christian bitches !
“Atheism has just become just another religion”
“Atheism has just become just another religion”
“Atheism has just become just another religion”
Another ignorant statement about Atheism… bro.
100 % sure you’re a Liberal ! Instead of countering an argument with logical explanation you resort to the classic liberal ” that’s ignorant !!!! ” .
Anyways, I apologize for the typo but with ” Atheism has just become another religion” i mean that atheists have slowly become like the exact people they hate. Forcing their belief system on other people, judging religious people ( only Christians .. its fine if they are Muslim or Buddhist) , claiming religion doesnt rule their life yet talk about the bible and Christianity more than a bible thumper.
If you mean %100 Classical Liberal then yeah.
I’m pretty sure you’re talking about Anti-theists from which General Atheists are not a part of nor take part in.
Much the same way Objectivist-based Free Market Capitalists like me are not a part of your Libertarian-Hypocritical-because-actually-Fascism.
Majority of Atheists tend to keep their ideals to themselves and no one knows they’re Atheist unless asked. They also tend to believe in free market capitalism, individual rights and a smaller government.
Freedom of belief. Freedom of pursuits of happiness.
When you’re calling an Atheist a broke loser and a slutty bitch there’s no point in laying out a logical explanation with you. Just a heavy mental bitchslap back is all you should get.
Feel free to go back to the gym.
Apologies for the gym remark. I actually have a lot of respect for lifters. Just got caught in the heat of the moment.
“They also tend to believe in free market capitalism, individual rights and a smaller government.”
This right here is 100% bonafide A-grade bullshit. The stereo-typical atheist, and Almost ALL atheists that I know, conform to the same predictible tropes: socially progressive, pro-“gay marriage” (sic), feminist, pro-statist, pro-socialist, pro-communist, pro-welfare, pro-Big Government.
If you are an atheist and a free-market capitalist advocate, you need to understand that you are in the vanishingly small minority when compared to all atheists as a group.
“socially progressive, pro-“gay marriage” (sic), feminist, pro-statist, pro-socialist, pro-communist, pro-welfare, pro-Big Government.”
…and probably shops at the thrift shop, listens to obscure indie bands or some form of stylized rock, and goes to organic coffee shops in the morning. You just described the canonical hipster. They shouldn’t even be called Atheists. They only proclaim to be because it’s fashionable.
Not all Atheists reside in ‘Murica. We are not a “vanishingly” small minority. Nor should we be. Anyone who has taken steps to realize the degenerative effects of religion also should have realized the degenerative effects of all belief and societal systems that are based on intolerance to others.
No dude, just look at posts like this by atheist heroes like Rebecca Watson: http://skepchick.org/2011/07/the-privilege-delusion/ “I am a feminist, because skeptics and atheists made me one”
Rebecca Watson is the face of modern atheism, and just like I condemn “moderate” muslims for not disowning their militant radical islamist kin, so too do I criticise atheists for not throwing this skepchick bitch out of their movement and condemning her in the strongest tones possible.
But instead, Rebecca Watson has become the new atheist hero, the face of the modern atheist movement. And she’s nothing but male sexuality-villifying feminist harpy.
Take a look at the community dude. I have no problems if anyone doesn’t believe in a higher being/intelligence. I personally believe the rational position is agnosticism, because there isn’t definitive evidence either way (although I err on the side of their being rather more evidence to support the existence of a higher intelligence than not), but if someone wants to come the the personal conclusion that there’s probably no higher intelligence in existence, that’s fine.
But they should NOT align themselves with the identity of “atheist” in my opinion, because that has been hi-jacked by feminists and progressives.
In other words, I would rather suggest it to you that it would be better for you to call yourself an agnostic who believes, on the balance of evidence, that there is probably no god. In my eyes, that would lend you more credibility than if you identified with “atheists”.
From that same article: “I learned more about modern feminism and about how their goals so
clearly overlapped those of the humanists and skeptics and secularists”
Apparently, it’s called “atheism+”, and its basically the mainstream form of atheism these days, which is all about mainly “secular humanism” and feminism, moreso than just atheism, which is merely the lack of belief in a god.
As I say, I think you’d be better off describing yourself as an agnostic who believes on the balance of evidence that there’s probably no god, rather than getting mixed up in the modern shitfight that is “atheism”.
It’s not grade A bullshit, you’re just an ingnorant. A shitload of, usually most, fat chicks are chicks who did really well in school as fucking ass kissers. The usually act super goody-two-shoes and were always told how great they were by feminist teachers and by everyone around them when they were growing up. Many of them are very religious too–usually goes hand in hand with being goody-two-shoes. It’s their behavior that catches up to them as they grow older. They become more hypocritical and retarded.
This doesn’t apply to all fat chicks, but it does to most. Most atheist/agnostic chicks that I’ve known/know were/are pretty intelligent and good-looking. They’re also way cooler and easier to handle than religious chicks.
*ignorant dumbass
That should be the end of the first sentence.
No the face of atheism is Richard Dawkins, or at least he is in civilized place like Europe.
It wont be civilized if you keep letting in third worlders who’ll curb stomp Dawkins and set up a Caliphate.
Anyone looking for guidance, meaning and solace during hard times will find it irregardless of a religion or not. Anyone who takes on human vices and degenerate behavior will do so with or without a religion.
To be religious and libertarian is the worst combination. You claim liberty yet would drop a hammer on anyone who would claim a belief that you would find abhorrent.
“self-proclaimed in your face atheist i know is some kind of broke loser” Bill Gates much?
“who doesn’t even lift!” Brad Pitt much?
“loser” Hugh Hefner? Seth MacFarlane? Daniel Ratcliffe? Morgan Freeman? Lance Armstrong? Kevin Bacon? James Cameron? Marlon Brando? Sigmund Freud? Seth Green? Billy Joel? Bruce Lee? Bill Maher? Barry Manilow? Rafael Nadal? Jack Nicholson? George Orwell? Howard Stern? Mark Zuckerberg? Larry King? Stanley Kubrick? Keanu Reeves? Adam Savage? Warren Buffet? Thomas Edison? Richard Branson?
“atheist bitches” Angelina Jolie? Jodie Foster? Julianne Moore? Diane Keaton? Hellen Keller? Katharine Hepburn? Ayn Rand? Helen Mirren? Sarah Silverman?
…
Maaaan fuck yo ignorance nigguh.
Also 93% of the members of the National Academy of Science and also all of the pioneers in the field of computer science
Oh lord, so wrong you make me laugh. Here’s the wikipedia article on the history of computer science: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_computer_science. Dozens of men and women are mentioned in developing theories and technologies that have shaped the field of computer science. How many of them are atheists? I counted 2, although I may have missed some.
How quickly you forget how Donald Knuth (a living pioneer of computer science) made all you aspy atheists so uncomfortable with his extremely public discussions of his deeply felt faith.
Unless you actively took the list:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_prominent_pioneers_in_computer_science and researched everyones
and researched each and every person, I’m calling bullshit on your accounts.
What exactly are you calling bullshit on? That most of the people mentioned in the wikipedia article I listed are christians or that they are pioneers of computer science?
And why would I need to research everyone? Finding that even one of them is not an atheist would dispute Mark’s claim wouldn’t it? Which you’ll notice is something I’ve already done in mentioning Donald Knuth (you see, I’m actually familiar with this stuff off hand, I don’t need wikipedia articles for anything other than something to cite, unlike our friend Mark and unlike you), who is on that list.
And finally, as there are so many things wrong with your call of bullshit (not understanding what Mark was saying, not understanding what I was saying, not reading the article I cited, not reading the article YOU cited…), are you retarded?
“irregardless of a religion or not ” ….. LMAOOO @ irregardless. One of the tell tale signs of a moron And u have the audacity to call me ignorant ??!!
Plus u argue like a woman … ” Brad pitt much ? … Bill gates much … ? ” . U remind me of this HB7.25/10 i used to bang
Irregardless is an actual word that has been used for centuries, double negative or not. Don’t go pointing out shit when you’re using single letter “words”. You remind me of this punk kid back in high school who’d have such a big mouth he’d get picked on by the bigger guys and I’d be sitting there feeling sorry for the dude. He’s probably jacked now like you are probably, trying to make up for past failures. Good for you.
I’m an atheist but I am pretty jacked, where do I fit in here
most of america is fat as hell and most of them are religious, so I don’t really understand the point of this article
just try telling fat people at church that gluttony is a sin and you’ll drown in rationalizations
You fit in right beside your peers, of course:
The feminist: “I’m a feminist, but I don’t resent men!”
The fat apologist: “I’m obese, but I’m actually quite healthy!”
The Muslim: “I honor Allah, but I am still for peaceful pluralism!”
Any further questions?
So not all atheists are like that. Got it.
In statistics, you’re called an outlier.
So congratulations on becoming a special snowflake. It doesn’t mean that generally speaking “MOST” atheists are basement dwelling rejects that are spiritually immature or worse… blind.
Complete bullshit. The most religious states in America have the rates of obesity. Just look at the Bible Belt.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obesity_in_the_United_States
And American most religious ethnic group, African Americans
“The obesity rate for Black adults (over 30 BMI) in the US in 2010 was 36.9%.[21] For adult Black men, the rate of obesity was 31.6% in 2010.[22] For adult Black women, the rate of obesity was 41.2% in 2010.[22]”
Hell, just compare Jesusland USA to most of Europe or Japan.
I was raised in the Bible Belt, those people are fulling the void with both Jesus and Chic-Fil-A.
Religion and food are the drug of choice of the American underclass.
Fatties also tend to have lower IQs. In addition, most blacks and Latinos aren’t really religious anyway, or if they are, they have a warped sense of the divine that is mainly Marxist.
Have you driven through a black neighborhood, churches and liquor stores everywhere? Talk to your black co-workers on Monday, talk to them about religion. You’ll find many of them are bat-shit crazy religious. Hell even Obama knows this, campaigning for President like he was Jesus the Second.
Voodoo != Christianity.
The question isn’t whether black people are fatter than white people, it’s whether black atheists are fatter than black religious people.
But it’s ok, math is hard.
Besides Neil Degrasse Tyson, and maybe a pimp or two, how would you do that study?
I work with a black guy who is a self proclaimed “smooth player” who parties, screws around on his baby mama, gets high, and leads what all would claim to be a very secular lifestyle. Yet I was shocked to hear him preach a very fundamentalist Christian view of reality and his strong belief in the Bible.
My guess of a Black Atheist (who keeps it secret) is Barak Obama, no way is that guy religious, all his talk is just as a politician where religion is obligatory. Fat?
That makes sense. Most Christian girls would come from Christian homes, so they statistically have a greater chance of growing up with a stay-at-home mom making good nutritious meals instead of bringing home fattening junk food for the family after a long day at the office.
Religion and food are the opiate of the people! A bible in one hand, and a burger in the other.
False. See facts in main article and see what you wrote is opposite of reality.
There are no facts in the article, just a bunch of lazy, incorrect assumptions based of the writers warped view of the world. Atheists tend to look after their health more than religious people, as we know there is only one life rather than the fairy stories you tell yourself.
You sound like my atheist friend who tries to make it sound like all atheists are the pinnacle of virtue, when in reality your average atheist is just a brain dead consumerist who justifies hedonism with YOLO. To be fair, I’m talking about nonreligious, not active atheists, who weirdly use Christian morality and self righteousness to dismiss all religion.
Don Juan’s proposition.
“Atheists tend to look after their health more than religious people.”
Old Guard’s Counter argument and point
“Very religious Americans make healthier choices than their moderately religious and nonreligious counterparts across all four of the Healthy Behavior Index metrics, including smoking, healthy eating, and regular exercise. Smoking is one area of particular differentiation between the very religious and less religious Americans, with the nonreligious 85% more likely to be smokers than those who are very religious.”
Source: Gallup Poll: http://www.gallup.com/poll/145379/religious-americans-lead-healthier-lives.aspx
Generalized linear model analysis was used to estimate marginal scores all five reported metrics after controlling for age (in years), gender, race/ethnicity, marital status, education (number of years), log of income, and region of the country… Results are based on telephone interviews conducted as part of the Gallup-Healthways Well-Being Index survey Jan. 2-July 28, 2010, with a random sample of 554,066 adults, aged 18 and older, living in all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia, selected using random-digit-dial sampling.”[4]
Fact:
Obesity is positively associated with impulsiveness, lower self-discipline and neuroticism.
In addition, many people overeat in response to negative emotions such as depression, anger, anxiety and boredom.
In January of 2011, CNN reported: “People unaffiliated with organized religion, atheists and agnostics also report anger toward God either in the past, or anger focused on a hypothetical image – that is, what they imagined God might be like – said lead study author Julie Exline,
Case Western Reserve University psychologist.”Of course, given the irrationality of atheism, it is not surprising that there are atheists who are angry at God who is morally perfect.”
A high percentage of the founders and prominent leaders of the militant New Atheism movement have had problems with being overweight and anger may have been a causal factor in some cases. Certainly anger cannot be ruled in terms of militant atheists, such as New Atheists, having problems with obesity.
QET
So Don Juan what came first? The anger or the bloated “waste” line?
check these the maps in these links:
http://www.fatherthywillbedone.com/irreligion-becoming-americas-new-pagan-religion-or-secular-church/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epidemiology_of_obesity
and feel the failure of your logic!
Nope.
Research Shows Religion Plays A Major Role In Health, Longevity
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/05/990517064323.htm
Scientific Fact
1. In March of 2011, USA News and World Report declared that an Arizona State University study suggests that fat stigma has gone global.In addition, parts of the world that once viewed being overweightfavorably now hold negative views concerning having extra pounds and also hold negative views concerning overweight individuals.
Poor self-esteem has been linked to an increase in suicide attempts and atheists have higher rates of suicide than the general population.Obese atheists likely have significantly higher rates of suicide than the general public.
2. While there are differences between genders and races, in general those who go to church once or more each week can look forward to about seven more years than those who never attend.
Life expectancy beyond age 20 averages another 55.3 years, to age 75, for those who never attend church compared to another 62.9 years, age 83, for those who go more than once a week.
3. A large Canadian study involving 70,000 adults found that those who attended Church services regularly had fewer depressive symptoms than average.
4. One major study involving over 2,000 young people aged between 11-18 showed church attendance and involvement in a church-based youth group reduced risk-taking behaviors such as smoking, alcohol use,
marijuana use, truancy and depression, even when controlling for socioeconomic status and self-esteem.
Regarding sexual activity, church attendance and youth involvement reduced sexual activity. Furthermore, the risk-taking behavior that often occurs in early adulthood was less marked in the religious cohort.Self-esteem was also higher among those attending church.
A survey of 1,100 American adults aged over 18 found that those who were religious had a lower number of sexual partners than those who werenot.
Believers Consume Fewer Drugs Than Atheists
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/10/131003093041.htm
Q.E.T.
Do me a favor and actually read the two sciencedaily articles.. and btw Wikipedia is not a credible source.
First let’s see the hypothesis : ” Atheist people are fatter than religious people”
Methodology requirements :
A-Obesity is measured by BMI and, a scientific study should only compare the BMI of these two groups while making all other factors( SES, education,..) the same, between the two groups.
B- Defining who is an atheist and who is a religious person. especially the latter : is a religious person is the one who goes to church every sunday and is involved in church services, or is the one who describes/expresses himself as religious?- I think the second definition is more accepted.
now let’s look at your answers :
1- the Arizona study : Irrelevant to our hypothesis . Second paragraph about suicide is both irrelevant and unscientific.
2- again Irrelevant ( it is about living longer not BMI). also this about the people who go to church, not all of religious people. there is a big difference.( part two of methodology)
3- same as number 2 ( not about BMI, only church goers)
4- same as number 2 ( not about BMI, only church goers)
5- the Swiss study :Not about BMI
Another big problem of your answer is the (external) validity of studies : 1- most of them only cover Christianity 2- most of them cover north America (only one in Europe). how about other religions ? other countries?
now let’s look at my answer:
1- I said look at the maps, not read the articles. they are three maps.
2-A a map shows the distribution of the atheists in the world. it not 100% scientific but it is good for start. it is done by a Japanese Communication institute. here is the Wikipedia link : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreligion_by_country#cite_note-1
and here is the Map link : (darker is mean more atheist)
http://www.fatherthywillbedone.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/Irreligion_map2.png
3- second and third maps show the prevalence of Obesity in the world(Men and Women , data is from International Obesity Task force.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World_map_of_Male_Obesity,_2008.svg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World_map_of_Female_Obesity,_2008.svg
4- here is the most recent one :
http://www.iaso.org/iotf/obesity/
Now tell me what you see?
That map is not obesity rates. I can tell you straight out China IS NOT the fattest country in the world. All the other studies I have seen rank Mexico, US, UK up there amongst the fattest. According to this so called “Obesity Map” China, Vietnam, Japan, and the Scandinavian countries are the fattest which is completely untrue. Very, very few Vietnamese are fat, I know this first hand from working with a dozen Vietnamese men hearing them aghast at how fat Americans are telling me they have never seen anything like that back in Vietnam. Atheism tends to go along with High IQ, Obesity is known to correlate to Low IQ so whoever wrote this silly article is spewing nonsense out their rectum.
Wrong communist.
Hedonism (excessive sex, drugs and alcohol) and conspicuous consumption or materialism is the opiate of the American people.
Funny how Satanism is based on “atheism”, hedonism and materialism.
Atheism is a lack of belief in a supernatural being or deity. therefore it cannot be linked with Satanism, nor is it linked with hedonism or materialism.
As for the article, one trip to the US will confirm that the article is bullshit and that (strangely enough!) obesity is linked with the state, not the religion. If it were, we could blame Christianity for the figure of 74.1% adults obese in the US. I also love how the evidence for the author is a load of cheap ass poorly edited pictures with random fat people in random situations.
You’re mixing apples and oranges.
The article is stating that the official teachings of the major religions all frown on overindulgence.
Assuming you are correct that the “most religious” states (according to whom?) are most fat, that is not the point here.
The author is simply making the point that the major religions have served the function of providing moral codes that help the individual and keep his baser instincts under control.
The fact that many people do not live up to the ideal is a separate issue. Even if people often violate the rules, it is better to at least have a rule in place. Modern America has taken away ALL the rules regarding personal conduct.
It’s better to have some rule in place, however imperfectly followed, than no rules at all.
brother quintus i disagree….secular humanism, which is the rational alternative to organized or semi-organized religion, is perfectly capable of creating and enforcing rules and moral codes.
please consider the following response by richard dawkins….
Rez:
I certainly agree, and never meant to imply that religion was the only way to impart a moral code to humanity. Secular humanism, which I admire greatly, is an alternative.
But only for the elites: the scholars, educated men, and the civilized souls.
The average person is incapable of being kept in line by philosophical inducements. Only the elite will do good for the sake of doing good. Long ago, wise men recognized the need to create moral codes that have the backing of a supernatural sanction: that is, there needs to be the terror of “God” behind the code, for it to sink in.
Do you think the ancient Hebrews would have taken Moses’s ten commandments that seriously if he had not claimed them to have been dictated by God himself?
Do you believe that the holy scriptures of the great religions (Torah, Koran, Bible) would have the same aura of authority, if people did not believe that they were divinely revelealed in every word?
The average person is a simple soul, not inclined to nuanced thought or sophisticated thinking. This is not a criticism, but an observation of reality. That is very true. We can condemn religions (and far too often academics do), but we should not forget that they have served an important function in history.
His entire argument is that morality should be decided by mob rule, which he carefully phrases as ‘consensus of reason’. Do I even need to explain why morality isn’t like picking the president?
I wouldn’t consider myself religious but I tend to run, not walk, away from professional atheists for views like this.
your point is well taken Quintus. i completely agree that this requires a sophisticated person. but in many parts of the world, there very sophisticates have come to outnumber their dim-witted brethren (eg northern europe, canada, etc).
i admit that this issues leaves me conflicted…..surely we can NOT advocate something as advanced as secular humanism within, for example, my native iran…where the overwhelming majority of people have been brainwashed since childhood to believe in utter nonsense. here’s one lesser known and especially embarrassing example….
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamkaran
but when i look to europe and north america, i see civilizations that have benefited enormously from the renaissance and the enlightenment. the struggle continues within these societies (george W banning federal funding of stem cell research – an absurd decision in a secular republic).
but what i can’t decide is the following: when do we START encouraging the less enlightened peoples of the word to abandon primitive, superstitious beliefs?
it would be absurd to expect recently anarchic somalia to become uber civilized holland within our lifetimes…but shouldn’t be at least start the process in this regard??
and i fear that by tolerating and respecting religion, we risk keeping these peoples and their societies backwards forever. after all, how many children do educated secular humanists in holland have…and how many children do muslims in qom have??
i’d welcome your thoughts on this.
Human beings are innately reasonable people (on certain levels), so it’s hard for me to think that the hebrews only realized murder was wrong after moses showed them the ten commandments. If you disagree, how do you explain the billions of people that have no idea what the ten commandments are, being courteous and just people. In my opinion, it’s more noble and shows way more character when someone can do good for it’s own sake, as opposed to someone who needs a gun to their head to be a good person.
You bring up many good points, as always, Rez. Essentially, what you are describing is the timeless struggle between Faith and Reason. Humanity needs both as a requirement of civilization. I see myself as a humanist, like you. I take a tolerant, sympathetic view of religion as a necessary way of imparting a moral code to a people in a way that stands the test of time.
I also believe religions, at their best, can embody the nobler, more tender aspects of the human condition: kindness, love, faith, believe, charity, and devotion. The young, hot tempered mind will hate religion and condemn its shortcomings; but the mature mind will see the span of centuries, and see the longevity of religion, and will understand that it is an essential part of the human condition. We must not be too quick to condemn things that have stood the test of time over many thousands of years.
I recognize the danger in my views. I can be very easily accused (and rightly so) of turning a blind eye to the more unpleasant aspects of religion: the fanaticism, intolerance, suppression of free speech, and the like. It becomes a valid question whether religion has done more good than evil in history. My personal opinion is that the good has outweighed the evil.
And yes, of course, reformations and enlightenments are necessary every so often. The abuses and excesses of the Catholic Church in the middle ages and the renaissance made the Reformation necessary. It would appear that Islam is ripe for some sort of reformation of its own. Perhaps it is already happening, in subtle ways too incremental to notice.
I share your disgust for the ignorant fanatics of whatever stripe they may be: in Somalia, in Iran, wherever. But I am not so sure that the unpleasant conditions there are due to “religion”. Remember, Somalia fell apart in chaos in the 1990s as a result of tribalism, feuding potentates, and the failure of the state to meet the needs of its people. The current fanaticism there is not really the fault of religion. The severity of the religion there needs to be seen in context. It is severe because it has had to reckon with extreme chaos and instability, and the absence of a government to keep law and order. It is what it has to be to cope with its environment.
Iran is a special case. There you had a domestic tyrant overthrown by a revolution guided by a charismatic leader who happened to be a cleric. I have read Baqer Moin’s biography of Imam Khomeini and found it very instructive. Iranians are a very proud, nationalistic people, and deeply resented the imposition of a Western-controlled government. I can sympathize with this feeling.
Unfortunately, the clerical class in Iran has now become overbearing and suffocating, and has apparently alienated much of the young. I find this sad. Like many things, too much religion is not a good thing. All things in moderation, Rez. But remember that the severity of the rules there has much to do with a society feeling under extreme pressure by outside forces. There as been a terrible blockade of Iran by the West for decades, because of its refusal to follow orders from the US. In extreme conditions like this, societies get very defensive and turn inward. Don’t blame all of this on religion. I could just as easily point to the tenderness and sensuality of the Sufi mystics and their poetry, and the soaring grandeur of the architecture of Isfahan, to make a good case for the beauty and wonder of Shi’a Islam. There are many sides to things.
Under extreme pressure, people retreat into what they know best, and what makes them feel safe and secure.
Despite all this, I think the future is positive for Iran. They have an intelligent and diligent population, natural resources, and a commercially-minded culture.
thank you for your thoughtful response. you’ve given me several points to consider.
Yeah because we all know wonderful human beings are.
P.S. Dawkins is okay with stroking little boys’ dicks.
Yes, that is why society had defined and codified laws which follow the patterns laid out in the Ten Commandments.
Besides the New Testament expounds on the reason for the Ten Commandments, “They were written on stone because your hearts were hard.”
If people have it too hard, they get vicious. If they have it too easy, they become vicious.
Behold Dawkins getting destroyed by Oxford Theologian John Lennox.
“Debate: Has Science buried God?” Dawkins admits to Jesus’ existence and it all goes down hill for him there.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MZa0otVkmK4
Science is based on hypothesis, which is defined as educated guesses. Theories are those guesses that are “confirmed” to be true through multiple replicated controlled studies.
Nothing which disproves how the Grand Architect of the Universe followed basic consistent rules to create the whole Universe. I don’t think people realize how infinitely complicated it is to create the universe through the Big Bang.
Renaming everything like the Higgs’ Field which the ancients like Plato and Aristotle knew as Aether does not constitute as a discovery.
“We are no longer able to hear God — There are too many frequencies filling our ears.”
Pope Benedict XVI
I would revise that. It’s not for elites per se. It’s for people who are sane and not terribly poor.
But it’s true that it’s not for psychopaths or the criminal underbelly of society. Like it or not the only way to contain psychopaths is to make it personal i.e. convince them that there is a very insane God who will personally fuck them up if they mess with others. Otherwise they’re not guaranteed to behave morally.
No they’re not. Secular humanism has no dogmas or rules. People make it up as they go along. There is no enforcement of rules and moral codes. And secular humanism, most of its philosophical leanings, is just Christianity without Christ. Without a spiritual locus, whatever morals they steal from Christianity will evaporate when they’re inconvenient, unlike how religious people suffer inconvenience for the sake of God.
It’s sort off irrelevant what the Bible or the Koran teaches. Those books are so big and full of conflicting teachings that they can be used to promote nearly everything. Even things you can’t really promote with it, are promoted anyway.
Tell me how many churches are fighting the obesity epidemic. The only thing they do related to “fighting gluttony” is donating to the poor, as far as I know.
I agree that most humans need something like religion in their lives. It would explain why some atheists try to make atheism a religion–a retarded idea. That being said, linking atheism to obesity is such a stretch.
The organization of religion is one of the largest causes of death on the planet, and you’re right, it’s because of all those stupid conflicts in the texts.
Deuteronomy 20-25 in the Bible gives a bunch of rules about when we’re supposed to kill our wives and kids. (If the kid disobeys, stone him to death, if you get married and find out she’s not a virgin, stone her to death…etc) Then, the 10 commandments in the same book of the Bible…says don’t murder. =|
Why can’t people just…be nice…for the sake of being nice…
Why do they have to get a reward at the end, in order to not be a douche to people?
Not all religious people are like that, obviously. The ones who just use Jesus’ life as an example for moral propriety are very nice. The story of Jesus is full of 100% acceptance, love, peace, etc. Well, except for when he flipped his lid at those dweebs in the temple… =p.
I say live and let live…believe what you want, you can even tell me about it if you like, but don’t try to shame me for not agreeing with you, or convert me. I choose to believe that whatever Creator made us ISN’T the petty hateful entity that the Old Testament makes him/her/it out to be.
And yeah…saying that atheists are fat…and it’s because they don’t believe in God…is ridiculous.
I don’t believe in any “Official” “God” as defined by any religion, and I could stand to lose a few pounds (I’m about 200, 6ft tall, around 22% bodyfat last I checked)
But….I weigh what I do because I work full time and am in college, 21 credit hours this semester…and because I just love beer. Not because I don’t believe that God wants us to kill our non virgin wives… =
my church has sports leagues for kids and adults, as well as a free gym. I know that’s not much, but I don’t see too many fatties there.
Religion is just a tool of the power elite. So fuck it.
“Modern America has taken away ALL the rules regarding personal conduct.” Nonsense, America has the world largest prison population.
Less is more.
Here’s my take: every christian I have met is a hypocrite one way or another e.g. love everyone… hate fags. Not their fault, the bible is hypocritical itself, you know there’s a passage that says no man should wear their hair long… what about jesus?
The religious people I’ve met are all shades of fat from skinny to obese, so whether or not the bible says that’s bad doesn’t mean shit, not when they pick and chose what they will believe.
Religions have much more teachings than “not being fat”. Taking one single teaching of religion, then repackaging it into social theory is a bit preposterous. Particularly because religion itself is tautology – you can explain everything with it, even opposite things.
I can equally explain why non-religious person is fat with argument of rules of religion, as i can explain why non-religious person is thin and athletic with same argument.
The core idea behind empiricism is that perception is the window to
reality, and that any understanding of reality must be perceptually
confirmed.
People say that seeing is believing. But seeing is not believing; thinking is believing. Seeing is knowing; everything else is emotive hope, probabilistic guess or reasoned theory.
Neitzsche have put forward the argument that without sensory input of any kind, a man would fail to be Christian, and that religious belief is conditional upon personal circumstances. Their view is partially correct. Men inherit their faith from their ancestors and certainly, for the unreflective man, faith is a circumstantial habituated practice.
The reflective man however has a problem. He questions and challenges his faith, and if logically consistent, finds that there is nothing in the Universe which supports his view. Thieves prosper, the good are murdered, and the completely innocent suffer tremendously. Empirically, there is no way he can confirm that Gay Marriage and Adultery are objectively wrong. Statistically he may be able to find data that supports a respective religious vision, but he cannot find any data the confirms a creed. As commentators Brockmann and Nietzsche imply, ought cannot be derived from is and hence the implication that transcendent truths are unknowable, and therefore arbitrary fairy stories; cognitive products of the imagination for whatever reason.
They are, of course, logically correct.
And yet they are wrong.
Because their understanding of the human perceptual capacity is in error.
I wish to illustrate what I mean by starting off with a passage of
biblical text. Not because I want them to believe in the veracity of the Bible, but because the text succinctly explains the difference between believers and non-believers and problem of Modernity.
As it is written: God hath given them the spirit of insensibility; eyes that they should not see; and ears that they should not hear, until this present day.
(Romans 11:8 Douay-Rheims)
Note the term insensibility, the inability to sense or perceive.This is not a play on words, as different translations of text refer to same phenomenon. The Christian fathers did not think of faith as a
cognitive process but a sensory modality. In their view, unbelief was not the product of faulty thinking, it was the product of insensibility; a perceptual failure.
To them, faith was a sixth sense; an eye or ear-like faculty which
allowed us to perceive non-physical realities. When the Christian
fathers asserted that men should not commit adultery, they were not plucking something out of thin air or making a rational calculation based up their value preferences; they were being empirical.
The atheist mistake is in assuming that the divisions amongst the
religious are due to differing rationalizations instead of differing
interpretations. To use our nearly blind group of men analogy, the
atheist or rationalist blind man thinks that the man affected with the
severe cataracts is making things up, whilst the man with the cataract is trying to understand what is going on. If you were to take a group of men with cataracts and present them with a the image of a person at a distance, one will say its Fred, some will say its Bill and the others will say its Judy, they will all know that they have percieved something even if they are not sure what it is, but the blind men, being unable to perceive, will assume that the cataract affected, are making things up.
What separates the Moderns from the rest of humanity is in this
perception of “something else” beyond the five-sense barrier. And
Christians ,in particular, should understand that from the atheist
perspective (those who lack the faith sense), religion is logically
ridiculous. And it is this fact that poses a huge practical problem for conservatives and it also gives an inkling of what we are up against.
When Christopher Hitchins or his ilk argue that faith is just superstition and “fairy stories”, they are absolutely correct from their objective point of view. You see, Hitchins et al, live their life assuming with certitude, that there is no such thing as “faith-sight” and any statements with regard to “faith-colours or forms” are arbitrary. The honest ones amongst them are like blind men, who truly and honestly believe that there is no such thing as sight, and any statements regarding such are rubbish. Trying to convince these men, by rational argument, of the existence of transcendent moralities is by logical necessity, going to fail. In order to get the get the militant atheists on side you’ve got to get them to “see”. They literally can’t think their way towards religion because
good thinking without faith is irreligious. Or to put it another way,
arguing with them is like arguing with a blind man about the nature of colour, there is no way you can get him to “see” red.
This “faith-sense”, not being a renationalisation process, cannot
therefore be experienced by acts of rationalization. Blind people
cannot experience colours by study or by rational argument; they have to sense them.
The only way past this impasse is by some way granting them the ability to “see”. The Church fathers also recognised that this faith sense was not “intrinsic” to our being but was rather a bestowed gift of God.* That means petitionary prayer; asking God to give our enemies “sight”. This is why there will be no HBD or atheistic conservative revival (they may be able to give the appearance of conservative revival but it will eventually degenerate into leftist decay, it’s a movement trying to empty a bathtub with a seive). They are operating within the same sensory frame of reference as do the atheists.
The West is doomed unless men start praying to God for revival
and conversion of their enemies. When the monasteries start
reappearing, that’s when you know it’ll all be right.
Many thanks to Social Pathologist.
http://socialpathology.blogspot.com/2011/01/giving-nietzsche-eyes.html
You are being completely disingenuous. The title of the piece is “Atheists are Fatties”. The article goes on to use statistics to demonstrate that theists lead healthier lifestyles than atheists, which may or may not be true, but at least be honest about the claims being made when challenged by someone.
But that’s not what the author stated, first of all. He stated blatantly incorrect things, like
A) Atheists eat because they have a “void” – there is no such thing as a void in the context of people having a psychological need. Also, to say that people are fat because of having a “void” is to oversimplify the obesity epidemic, which is caused by a multitude of factors. Such as.. you know, more and more jobs being sedentary and not so physically demanding.
B) China and the Muslim countries have some of the highest rates of obesity in the world, and guess what China’s major religion is? Buddhism.
C) I agree that it’s good to have “rules”. Rules against overindulgence are nice, but the consequences of overindulgence can easily be determined by reality. We don’t need religious text to have laid it out for us beforehand.
“Complete bullshit. The most religious states in America have the rates of obesity. ”
States aren’t individuals. Check the gallup poll I posted. More religious = healthier people.
Yes, states (or nations) are not individuals, but still the most relgious parts of the USA (except Utah) and the planet are the most screwed up. Where you would rather live Oregon or Mississippi, Europe or Africa?
http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2012/11/05/how-to-get-rid-of-religion/
Control for race.
White = Nice and safe.
Black = Dangerous and dirty.
Doesn’t matter whether you’re in a black part of Oregon or a nice part of Mississippi.
Stop trying to cover up black dysfunction by blaming it on Christianity. White Christians have no such dysfunctions. (In fact, white Christians have much more sex, and more satisfying sex, than their dried up, impotent atheist counterparts.)
Yes, their white priests and ministers sexual abuse their children in their churches. Billy Graham’s grandson stated there is more sexual abuse among evangelical than Catholics.
The “Gallup poll”? Nobody needs “facts” and “data”. Much easier to cite pop culture tropes like, “Burger in one hand, Bible in the other!”
(‘Course, believing beef makes one fat is part of why these atheists are fat – and also sexless and impotent – in the first place.)
So true about those tropes. All these atheist comments sound like Noam Chomsky-esque jibes against western civilization, the same meme about how the evil white man created the church to trick people into justifiying colonization, while giving a free pass to the arabs who never get indicted for their slave trade connections. Again, “atheism” to most of these “freethinkers” is just self-hate of western civ, not a debate of reason over faith.
You just went full retard,never go full retard.
What you wrote is complete 100% 24 carat crap.
God, Americans cannot be fixed. This kind of shit one can only read on an American website, written by an American, in American manner, designed purely for enjoyment of AVERAGE American.
Your shit is read by average unlettered mass, not by some sophisticated red pill crowd.
How can someone read pure shit you just wrote and possibly nod his head.
This does not have jack shit to do with red pill idea. This is tard-pill theory.
I assume the more sophisticated red pill crowd does more sophisticated red pill things like pitching hissy fits about articles they don’t like.
Cry more, bitch.
Does red pill entail believing the same old marxist “religion is the opiate of the masses” but then makes the state god, “Say hi to the new God, same as the old God”
This is not red pill, this is one dude composed text one afternoon, and now is ready to preach it as one and only single truth to the rest of masses who are ready to nod. If he wrote “earth is flat” there would be 4 idiots available to nod their head.
still pure shit
I didn’t like this article someone do something!
i didn’t like this comment, someone google a picture of baby and post it.
This is my little baby
In Europe, more atheist countries seem to be fatter than their more religious neighbors:
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php?title=File:Overweight_and_obesity_-_women,_2008.png&filetimestamp=20111216150512
Note that atheism is only one factor (languid Mediterranean countries like Malta and Greece, plus the chavvy U.K., have notorious pudginess problems), so you have to compare neighbors. For example, in the former Austro-Hungarian empire, the mainly-atheist Czech Republic, Hungary, and Slovenia seem to be pudgier than the more-Catholic Austria or Slovakia.
Don’t forget Poland, Italy and Spain … devoutly Catholic countries where it is rare to see a fat chick !
Lent is pure anti-obesity. In our modern libtard world, adherence to it has been slackening. It needs to be brought back.
What? I’m spanish -from Madrid- and girls (and boys) are getting fatter and fatter, each generation has more fatties than the previous, now you see a huge percentage of teens on the chubby side, future obese chicks. When I was a teenager, there was maybe 1 obese girl and 2-3 chubby girls in my class, and the rest were thin, now maybe the 50%+ percent are chubby and several obese. In fact the other day I saw an old neighbor (18 yo girl), that I haven’t seen in a year, and I almost didn’t recognize her -for real-, she just got inflated like a blowfish in one year! (such a shame she WAS very pretty)
I think it is a bit unfair to conclude that without religion to tell them not to be fat – people will immediately gorge themselves on food.
PZ Myers with the Atheist ladies
http://i.imgur.com/IIjLdks.jpg
Yellow dress girl could be whipped into shape.
The south has the highest rate of religious people in the nation and the highest rate of obesity.
Obesity is directly related to poverty … people in the south tend to be poorer than their coastal counterparts. Why don’t you compare what is comparable ? Within the same income group … I GUARANTEE that atheists are much more likely to be fat , liberal , broke, whiners and non lifters ! Go the Salt Lake city and check out the Mormons … slightly annoying but live exemplary lives !
The South also has the highest population of black people in the US. Lets not forget that blacks tend to be poorer and have higher obesity rates than most other minorities.
When people believe everything in the bible is true, they avoid higher education and are relegated to low paying jobs. Religion is a trap.
Did the atheism subreddit get linked to this article?
Control for race, retard.
I don’t see any correlation to atheism and gluttony/obesity. Any atheist who’s overweight is so because of laziness. As with the faithful, you’ll find lazy fat slobs among the faithless. Obesity has nothing to do with faith or lack of faith…it’s a matter of will and knowing that eating a diet rich in raw fruits, raw veggies, lean meats, nuts, and seeds and having a rigorous exercise routine will keep you fit and functioning optimally. This article’s argument did not prove that atheism is the cause of obesity. There are many factors in a person’s life that causes obesity…and I don’t think lack of faith is one.
People who don’t believe in anything stand for nothing. Can Obesity be caused by factors besides lack of faith ? Ofcourse ! But Lack of faith is a key ingredient leading to irresponsible behavior in general be it crime, drug addiction or obesity. There is definitely a correlation !
It’s certainly not true that we don’t believe in anything, I personally believe in the scientific method. Your faith makes you a Christian (I presume), and the scientific method makes me an atheist. Just because I have no faith in religion, doesn’t mean I don’t have any faith in my morality, the good it brings to the world, and the kind of person it makes me. You speak as if religion is the only thing that exemplifies and make people act morally. There are billions of people on this planet who have no idea what the 10 commandments are, they still have the ability to be decent human being. Do you rock your neighbors that don’t go to church on Sundays, how about that for crime. We all have what it takes to be law abiding and good people, independent of religion. Look at the things we believe in now in society no thanks to religion, anti slavery, women’s rights, and fair treatment of animals, and such. Sooo, what’s your point!
Very well put, in fact atheists are often the most moral people in many ways as we are usually humanists and believe in treating people equally. Religious people are often the most violent and intolerant people on the planet, the Bible and Koran both encourage murder, intolerance and hate among other things.
Wrong. You fail at history and politics.
Koukl details the number of people killed in various events involving theism and compares them to the much higher tens of millions of people killed under atheistic communist regimes, in which militant atheism served as the official doctrine of the state. It has been estimated that in less than the past 100 years, governments under the banner of communism have caused the death of somewhere between 40,472,000 to 259,432,000 human lives.
Dr. R. J. Rummel, professor emeritus of political science at the University of Hawaii, is the scholar who first coined the term democide (death by government). Dr. R. J. Rummel’s mid estimate regarding the loss of life due to communism is that communism caused the death of approximately 110,286,000 people between 1917 and 1987.
Apparently it was just an amazing coincidence that every Communist of historical note publicly declared his atheism … .there have been twenty-eight countries in world history that can be confirmed to have been ruled by regimes with avowed atheists at the helm … These twenty-eight historical regimes have been ruled by eighty-nine atheists,
of whom more than half have engaged in democidal162 acts of the sort committed by Stalin and Mao …
The total body count for the ninety years between 1917 and 2007 is approximately 148 million dead at the bloody hands of fifty-two atheists, three times more than all the human beings killed by war, civil war, and individual crime in the entire twentieth century combined.
The historical record of collective atheism is thus 182,716 times worse on an annual basis than Christianity’s worst and most infamous misdeed, the Spanish Inquisition. It is not only Stalin and Mao who were so murderously inclined, they were merely the worst of the whole Hell-bound lot. For every Pol Pot whose infamous name is still spoken with horror today, there was a Mengistu, a Bierut, and a Choibalsan, godless men whose names are now forgotten everywhere but in the lands they once ruled with a red hand.
Scientific studies and stats please.
Islam on Hate:
Allah Says in the Holy Quran Chapter 49 Surah
Hujuraat verses 11&12
11 O ye who believe!Llet not some men among you laugh at others: it may
be that the (latter) are better than the (former): Nor let some women laugh at
others: it may be that the (latter) are better than the (former): nor defame
nor be sarcastic to each other, nor call each other by (offensive) nicknames:
Ill-seeming is a name connoting wickedness (to be used of one) after he has
believed: And those who do not desist are (indeed) doing wrong.
12 O ye who believe! Avoid suspicion as much (as possible): for
suspicion in some cases is a sin: and spy not on each other nor speak ill of
each other behind their backs. Would any
of you like to eat the flesh of his dead brother? Nay ye would abhor it…but
fear Allah: for Allah is Oft-Returning Most Merciful
Christianity on Hate:
From the Bible
1 John 4:20
– If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for
he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God
whom he hath not seen?
1 John 3:15 – Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him.
Proverbs 10:12 – Hatred stirreth up strifes: but love covereth all sins.
Proverbs 6:16-19 – These six [things] doth the LORD hate: yea, seven [are] an abomination unto him:
Ephesians 4:29
– Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that
which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto
the hearers.
1 Corinthians 13:4-7 – Charity suffereth long, [and] is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up,
Leviticus 19:17 – Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart: thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbour, and not suffer sin upon him.
Matthew 6:24
– No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and
love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other.
Ye cannot serve God and mammon.
John 13:34-35 – A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.
Taoism on Hate
The Ten Precepts
1. Don’t harbor hatred or jealousy in your heart! Don’t give rise to
dark thieving thoughts! Be reserved in speech and wary of
transgressions! Keep your thoughts on the Divine Law!
2. Maintain a kind heart and do not kill! Have pity for and support
all living beings! Be compassionate and loving! Broadly reach out to
bring universal redemption to all!
3. Maintain purity and be withdrawing in your social interactions!
Be neither lascivious nor thieving, but constantly harbor good thoughts!
Always take from yourself to aid others!
4. Don’t set your mind on sex or give rise to passion! Be not
licentious in your heart but remain pure and behave prudently! Make
sure your actions are without blemish or stain!
5. Don’t utter bad words! Don’t use flowery and ornate language! Be
straightforward within and without! Don’t commit excesses of speech!
6. Don’t take liquor! Moderate your behavior! Regulate and
harmonize your energy and inner nature! Don’t let your spirit be
diminished! Don’t commit any of the myriad evils!
7. Don’t be envious if others are better than yourself! Don’t
contend for achievement and fame! Be retiring and modest in all things!
Put yourself behind to serve the salvation of others!
8. Don’t criticize or debate the scriptures and teachings! Don’t
revile or slander the saintly texts! Venerate the Divine Law with all
your heart! Always act as if you were face to face with the gods!
9. Don’t create disturbance through verbal argumentation! Don’t
criticize any believers, be they monks, nuns, male or female laity, or
even heavenly beings! Remember, all censure and hate diminishes your
spirit and energy!
10. Be equanimous and of whole heart in all of your actions! Mak
Hatred is not encouraged in any organized religion, and even in some not organized ones. Read, learn, repeat.
Fat chicks are walking avatars of all seven deadly sins. Gluttony and sloth are the most obvious, but they represent avarice, greed, envy, pride, and wrath too. This may explain why Christian girls are less likely to let themselves go.
Fat shaming strong enough for a man, “Previously suicidal 33 stone man transforms into ‘Mr Muscle”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2454213/How-33-stone-Mike-Waudby-transformed-super-fit-Mr-Muscles.html
but made for women, like the Secret deodorant.
Roosh seems to be hiring some complete whackos…and last I checked Roosh is athiest (or so I thought). I was reading Roosh’s blog (and this one once it came into existence) to improve myself as a man. But this ROK site is becoming incredibly immature with some people who have morals that I question. I don’t think I will be reading this site anymore.
Good.
don’t ignore the site. quintus’s articles are superb.
Boo-fucking-hoo.
Some people like lobster. You don’t. I thought only religionists were intolerant of other faiths?
Fix the title.
Samseau, when I see your name on a post I take it as a mark of quality, which it usually is. This post, however, is not quality. “Atheism leads to despair and big-waistlines”, that is utterly nonsensical. Take that thesis and chuck it into the woods, replace it with this “Atheism devolves responsibility and discipline down to the individual person”. It is because of the fact that they know that there is nobody punishing them that a dearth of healthy habits becomes more prominent. Atheism simply separates those with real self-discilpine from those who need to rely on an external authority to discipline themselves. Fuck fatties, but fuck this post as well.
yes
Amen. Pun intended.
Thing is, Texas is pretty religious, right? They’re also pretty fucking fat. So there goes that theory in one swipe. Well done Samseau, you’re living up to your true colours, or colour, should I say.
Texas is fat? Control for race. It’s got a ginormous Mexican population, and Mexicans are fatter than whites.
Show facts instead of citing mindless tropes.
And Mexicans are very religious.
Now you’ve done it, Samseau. You’ve riled up the keyboard atheists and all of their humorless, spergy wrath.
This is the worst article I have ever seen on ROK and a complete disappointment. Religion is the most blue-pill characteristic ever devised.
Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca
thank you for sharing this.
Your quote is legit, dude.
Let’s try again: Your quote.
Great… taking advice from Emperor Nero’s chief political adviser is like asking a BBW on how to lose weight.
To the incredibly ignorant, Nero is the worst emperor in history and burned Rome to the ground.
Seneca never said any such thing. Retard.
Find one major, contemporary atheist who doesn’t believe in equality between men and women.
I’ll wait.
Christopher Hitchens
Well, I’ll be damned. You found an atheist smart enough to see through the social justice, equalitarian bullshit that atheists and secular humanists take as their founding dogmas.
Heroic effort, my friend.
Christopher Hitchens was known for having a history of heavy drinking and chain-smoking. Christopher Hitchens was being treated for esophageal cancer likely caused by drinking and smoking up until his death on December 15, 2011.
Hitchens also had problems with being overweight during his life. According to the National Cancer Institute, “obesity is associated with increased risks of cancers of the esophagus.”
QET Thanks for proving our point.
Woody Allen, Bill Maher, Penn Jillette are all outspoken atheists whom criticize the political correctness and feminizing of America. Face it, the foundation of a blue-pill mindset is religion. The fact that you or anyone can’t see it is a mind control mechanism and then (presumably) claim to be disengaged from a blue-pill mentality is astounding to me.
Find one trait that could be more blue-pill than religion. There isn’t one. It was designed to be a control measure for the mindless masses.
Definition of “trait”
1. A distinguishing feature, as of a person’s character.
2. A genetically determined characteristic or condition:
I think you mean faith, righteousness, reverence and/or spirituality?
But I’ll bite. I can think of two things more blue-pill.
1. Public Education
2. Television or MSM (Main street media)
Faith, righteousness, etc. are all characteristics to an individual. And no other trait makes people forfeit independent thought and rationality to the same degree as religion. Furthermore, it is much more acceptable to criticize our public education system or MSM than religion. Religion has the immunity clause. It isn’t acceptable in polite society to degrade it.
If I’ve learned anything about the religious, especially in this country, it’s that they have a lot of beliefs and they live by none of them. An appreciation for fitness and health has way more to do with, education about the down sides to being unhealthy, and a want to look and be your physical and emotional best. Than it does your theological, and existencial beliefs. Honestly if you have the existencial insights, and scientific understanding it takes to become an atheist, you’re usually smart enough to realize being fat is unhealthy, and none the less unattractive. I disagree with this article on three counts, one being that since atheists are the lowest percentage in this country in the category of religious/irreligious the number of fat atheists aren’t even worth mentioning when it comes to counting the amount of fat people according to religious belief. The second reason I disagree with this article is that although I’m an atheist, I am very health conscious, and in the best shape a man could be. And, the third reason I disagree with this article, is because I don’t see how your article is in anyway supported by factual evidence, except the pictures with the quotes, show me an atheist fatty, and I’ll show you five christian, muslim, and hindu fatties. Bad article bro, any fatty is still a fatty, that fact is very independent of their beliefs.
Go watch “Jesus Camp”. Tell me, do you believe those kids have a future?
Pastor Becky Fischer, there’s a thin sexy Christian bitch. (If you’re a bull dyke)
This article would have been a little more credible if the writer had demonstrated that he knew how to spell atheism.
Roosh, a little more spell checking and editing of the articles that are posted on ROK would be good. I’m a regular to this site but too many spelling errors etc make this website seem like an amateur project.
This is a valid point, and I personally am striving to do better in my editing. We appreciate your patience.
But it’s also important to understand that this website is a labor of love for all concerned. That’s really what separates us from the slicked-down, professional carnival-barkers who churn out tripe to support the Matrix. All the writers here have full time jobs and do their best to deliver material that will entertain, infuriate, and enlighten.
We really do appreciate your readership, and hope you will continue to make constructive suggestions.
No QC, most of you guys’ labour produces abortions. Some articles are well written and argued and, even when contents is opinable, make for an interesting and intellectually stimulating read. Many others, like the above or the ones from specific posters (Mr. McQueen topping that list) are simple fillers that rehash that tired, pompous, self-referential and ultimately fictional PUA narrative. Nobody wants to hear about the “life experience” of a basement dweller who draws conclusions based on what he think would have happened if he had done something that only happed in his mind.
So, constructive suggestion: cut the BS and the PUA fiction and concentrate on articles about improving the lifestyle of the masculine crew, and serious topics like, you know, gender dynamics across the world. Mocking feminism and boasting stuff that never happened is puerile and doesn’t give this blog any quality edge whatsoever.
this website is evolving, and as such prone to minor issues. but we should be grateful that such a forum exists.
I can boil down all the butthurt responses to this post into one phrase: “NOT ALL ATHEISTS ARE LIKE THAT!!!”
Christians can’t get their stereotypes about atheists straight. For generations they taught that atheists engage in swinging promiscuity. Then that dumb termagant Rebecca Watson, the SkepChick, created Elevatorgate a few years back, and now atheist, skeptic and humanist conferences have regulations which practically forbid atheist men from talking to the women there. How can godless guys pick up women at these gatherings now?
And how can you find Rebecca Watson now in a crowd of atheists? Look for the woman whom men keep at least ten feet away from at all times.
So now some christians, like Vox Day, have picked up on this and argue that atheism attracts zero-game omegas who can’t get girlfriends any way.
Jeez, make up your minds.
That’s a pretty weak contradiction. Just because girls are disgusted by omegas doesn’t mean that they are not sluts, and just because guys are omegas doesn’t mean that they aren’t plowing their way through a sea of fatties.
How does Rebecca Watson getting offended by an omega trying to talk to her prove that atheists aren’t omega males? Must be more of that “logic” and “reason” atheists claim to exclusively possess.
Well I outed myself under the previous article. Here I will make only one note:
This isn’t a fat shaming article. It’s an atheist shaming article.
There are Obese fucktards regardless of Belief.
So relax all you sensitive Atheists.
There is a whole week of articles dedicated to fat shaming that is entirely secular i.e Being way overweight has very detrimental consequences in the realms of Health,Aesthetics,Sex,Relationships,Economics,Finances,Psychology,Sociology etc.
Today I went to a Christian wedding. It was a beautiful affair where a friend from work married the man she met and fell in love with at college. There was family, friends, exchange of scripture, and they made their own vows.
The women there were all gorgeous. every woman in the house had a good waistline on her except for one late 50 something mother of one of the guests. The young women were all trim and feminine.
I am debating the merits of joining their church.
It’s totally naive a person who is anti-feminist and anti-left/anti-liberal be against religion. If you’re atheist, alright, because this is your personal believe and you should keep it for yourself. But a person who dislike feminism and leftism arguing against the only force that keep these two poisons quiet enough to not destroy our culture, should be humble and think a little more.
Also, I’m not sure about overweight man, but most of overweight girls I know aren’t religious at all. These girls are angry. A girl can’t be truly religious and have peace with God, being angry at same time…
PS.: sorry my simple english…
PS2.: I know this site is not my place at all. I hope this is my last comment here. One day I’m sure that will exist a place for girls who aren’t delusional by these modern poisons.
Yeah, your English needs work, but America needs all the feminine women that it can get – broken English or not. So welcome aboard.
Your right that this site isn’t your place: that’s the kitchen, babe.
Article could also read: religion provides common sense for the inept via #godshaming.
It also raises the person’s standards and expectations too. God’s standards > Societal standards.
Remember the seven sins that lead to first spiritual death and eventually physical death are…
1. Wrath
2. Greed
3. Sloth
4. Pride
5. Lust
6. Envy
7. Gluttony
“It’s in man’s fallen nature to condemns things eternal for the sake of temporal things.” Thomas Aquinas
Either you are a total moron or just trying to stand out from the other posters who can post quality,either way,this is bullshit.Is it just me or are “race” and now “religion” posts more frequent and saddly written by people who know nothing about these things except googling up some shit in the past few days?
I neither believe in God nor believe in being an odious, fat reprobate.
21st century and still religious? I don’t think that we atheists are the trash here.
btw these photos of fat fucks are made by some hardcore Christian church for exact same reason you are using it now. They are completely fake and made only to sell faith to adolescents who are easily controlled by sight of not being popular.
21st century and still anti-feminist?
If you want to appeal to the myth of progress in order to make your point, take a number and get in line. The feminists, the LGBTQ propaganda machine, the massive Third World immigration lobby, the white privilege is evil crowd… they all beat you to the punch. They all make the exact same argument that you do. Get with the times already!
I think that alone would be enough to give your average red-piller a pause. But maybe I’m overestimating the average red-piller.
Trolling for fun. Not exactly what I expected from wise, masculine men of RoK. It’s ruining value and crediblity of the whole site. Was shitstorm in comment section really worth it…?
Because being wise and masculine means painstakingly cultivating a boring ideological consensus with moral scolds like me!
Haha. hilarious post. And with some sweet truthiness to boot. Well, truth actually.
Religions often build discipline too. Disicpline is the key to success in anything…training, diet, finances etc
http://www.learningthesteel.com
good stuff
Christians have more sex, and more satisfying sex, than atheists: http://blog.getrelationshiphelp.com/2009/07/christian-women-have-more-sexual-fun.html
(Numerous studies on the topic always reach the same conclusion.)
But while atheist women have less sex….they are more likely to shove lubed dildos up their cunts and count themselves “sexually satisfied” by their rubber cylinders. “Liberate yourselves from the tyranny of the penis with your dildo, girlfriends!”
While Christians tend to be kind and sexual, atheists are cranky, sexless, bloated….and altogether repugnant people.
“Christians,” you mean the same christians that are trying to make sodomy a felony, get out of here dude. Just sounds like atheist hating to me, I don’t think religiousness has anything to do with your sex life, if anything it restricts it. That’s what happens when old pedos write the rules on how to live life, and from your angry tone, sounds to me like someone needs to get laid.
Why are we attempting to shaming atheists on this site? What a retarded article.
The data-points the author uses – specifically chosen pictures of fat non-believers – are ridiculous.
Thin believers aren’t thin because of religion but because of lifestyle choices made outside religion. The US is one of the most religious nations on the planet and is stacked high with fatties, China’s state religion is atheism and everybody is skinny as fuck over there.
I know that’s also a ridiculous basis on which to assert a point but not any worse than the authors’ so I’ll go with it.
No religion influences the choices its believers make.
I disagree with atheism being the absence of religion. From my experience with atheists and from behavior of atheists, I have come to the conclusion that atheism is the religion of no religion, the religion of non-belief, or the belief in non-belief, whichever phrase resonates with the reader most.
The crusaderist behavior of atheists point to a belief. And once again, atheism is the belief in not believing.
This can be explained by the concept of number 0.
So 0 means non existence in numerical context. But, 0, exists. The non existence in itself since it can be defined, exists.
And that is atheism, and that is why atheists are dishonest, and that is why any discussion with atheists about atheism in the context that it is the absence of belief is doomed to get nowhere.
You should smoke some weed.
I mean serious. There is no point in talking about the existence of God.
You connect with the people, you live in God. You do not take what is not yours, you live in God. You defend your stuff when other people try to take it away from you, you live in God.
Simple. Peace.
Atheism is simply liberalism that has reached its logical conclusion.
This is so true. Every single “atheist” I know is overweight. I never thought about the connection until now. Mind = blown
I am an atheist (man) and I am not fat. If writing a new article every week compels you guys to come up with pointless drivel like the above, why don’t you ask Roosh to cut you some slack? Quality, not quantity.
By religious the poll is probably describing people who practice their religion, not just call themselves something.
There’s only pictures of fat men. I’m confused: shouldn’t female fat atheist be much worse than male fat atheist?
This article is 100% correct, and to all the butt-hurt “not all atheists are like that” commenters complaining about this post, please watch this youtube video about how Feminism is poisoning the Atheist movement.
There is one critical error in this article – the title.
I’d call it “Fatties are Atheists”, not the other way around.
I see where you are coming from, but I didn’t actually make any statements about the article, mostly because I don’t agree with it that much. I just thought that in light of the article, and common sense, the title should be backwards.
Good point. Fatties, perhaps, are able to satisfy their need for power, love, security and indifference towards pain by consuming large amounts of affordable and addictive processed food.
Stranger than fiction is the fact that the pure and cristaline truth about the causes of man-made disasters is out there in the literature, the fuckin’ Internet, everywhere, but people don’t want to leave their comfort zone of lies and resignation.
And then you meet some of those idiots working at international organizations that promote peace and understanding among countries, and the fuckin’ airheads try to convince you that the cause of human misery is that we always try to help each other.
The corporations are allowed to sell their crappy imitation of real food. They try to get everyone hooked on their legal drugs and dependent on the private insurance system because their products fuck with our bodies.
But these peace-and-love-and-understanding-let-us-smoke-ganja-by-the-lake-under-the-full-moon-baby international organizations allow all these shit to happen. They are another facade of Capitalism. Das Kapital owes them all.
And these international orgs brainwash their employees with the latest bullshit ideology so that they can spread it around.
The cause of human misery is not that we try to help each other.
Let us carry on with our kickass methodical destruction of everything that goes against human nature and therefore natural happiness. This is the best way to help each other at the moment.
Long live @[email protected]
Or whatever makes you free.
This is just not true. A lot of fat chicks are these super religious, goody-two-shoes chicks with the I’m better than you cuz they kiss ass so much. This is not fuckin true, at all.
CS Lewis had a good point saying that food fastidiousness is a form of gluttony.
This blog is turning into Republican cesspool
If the original Founding Fathers ran for office today, they would be ultra-conservative.
What is your point? That this website should turn into a Liberal cesspool? Well you can always try CNN, Buzzfeed and San Francisco.
You see ? More America in your post.
No I don’t. Please explain how vaguely and wrongly using “America” as an adjective is proving your point?
I think you mean “Americanism” and let’s not forget it was conservative Puritan work ethic and ideals that make USA great.
Bullshit. If it was up to puritans, you wouldn’t move farther then horse carriages. How can you even claim that people who preach stuff can ever make something as complex and sophisticated as USA. It’s people who WORK, not people whose business is to judge their first neighbors based on their clothing.
You think Washington was puritan ? Washington was Mason, he didn’t practice religion of the masses and for the masses, he practiced religion of the elite. They had their own god and their own vision and universe. You think he could identify religiously with some illiterate logger who beats his wife every weekend, with 3 teeth remaining ? That’s illusion people, wake up. Powerful people have their own god, they can’t just integrate with the mob. Why do you even think religion is any different than politics or any other kind of affiliation.
WASP (White Anglo-Saxon Protestant) establishment has founded and ruled the USA. Ever heard of Boston Brahmins?
The original WASP elite established the United States, its social structure and significant institutions, existing as the dominant social group beginning in the 17th century when the country’s social hierarchy took shape, and lasting into the 1960s, when WASP society gradually began to relinquish national control and retreating amongst themselves, growing reminiscent of a cloistered aristocracy,
in what has been termed the “leisure class”. Many scholars, including researcher Anthony Smith, argue that nations tend to be formed on the basis of a pre-modern ethnic core that provides the myths, symbols, and memories for the modern nation and that WASPs were indeed that core.
Yes many founding fathers were Puritan Masonic deists, which can be compatible with Protestant Christianity.
Protestant/Puritan Work Ethic: a belief in and devotion to hard work, duty, thrift, self-discipline, and responsibility.
You should do more reading before accusing others of “bullshit” you neophyte.
The autist footsoldiers of New Atheism talk a good game about empiricism and evidence, a really good game, but take this thread as an example of how they actually operate:
Samseau: “This poll suggests that, on the whole, very religious people live healthier lives that non-religious people, even after controlling for major demographic and regionable variables.”
The RoK Atheist: “My fucking god how dumb are you everyone knows that fat dumb southern redneck christians are the norm my god how can you not know that because its clearly the picture i have in my mind when i think of one you fucking asshole science reason evidence Dawkins Dawkins Darwin science intelligence.”
Atheists that make a big deal about their atheism are almost always dumb.
Makes sense
Atheism isn’t a religion because it’s rooted in logic–you know, the thing that makes you wait to cross the street until there aren’t any cars passing. Religion is faith-based. These idiots are crossing the street whether cars are present or not, usually at the behest of some guy dressed in a silly white poncho and hat, telling everybody so long as they believe there are no cars present, they’ll be able to make it to the other side.
As far as fat atheists go, maybe as a group we are fatter? I have no idea, and the correlation between fitness and religious affiliation is interesting.
“These idiots are crossing the street whether cars are present or not, usually at the behest of some guy dressed in a silly white poncho and hat, telling everybody so long as they believe there are no cars present, they’ll be able to make it to the other side.” Pictures or gtfo.
You can’t use your brain to imagine people crossing a street while cars are zooming past?
I’m saying that your argument is an absurd, somewhat rambling straw man. You think religious people are insane, so you apparently imagine them doing insane things. So it seems you’ve imagined something insane, said that it’s what religious people do, and then assume that you’ve made some sort of argument. I’m saying that what goes on in your crazy head has little bearing on reality. So if you want your argument to have meant something show that it has happened. Or for those of a faster intellectual bent, pictures or gtfo.
“As far as fat atheists go, maybe as a group we are fatter? I have no idea” You should have an idea. A gallup poll was cited, honest-to-goodness scientific evidence (if this makes atheists want to say “My god why have you forsaken me?”, I’d understand).
If we’re fatter, then so be it. I guess lucky for religious people, we’re the minority. But I’m in good shape and I don’t believe in gods or invisible fairies so I don’t think this will weigh on me too heavily (pun).
Aethism is as much of a religion as not having a stamp collection is a hobby…but Aethists usually belivie in what has been proved, ie science…and the scientists of medicine, doctors…say being fat is very bar…this article sucks
“bad” (Kindle keyboard)
You misspelled ” aethism” (sic) twice.
“say being fat is very bar…this article sucks”
Lololzzololzzzz
I am an atheist and scientific advocate, and this article is bullshit. I am in excellent shape and not anywhere near fat, many of the religious right wingers in the southern United States cannot make the same claim. All of America is going through an obesity epidemic, it is religiously independent and a result of poor choices.
Well the fact that you personally are an atheist and not fat totally disproves everything I guess.
Well at least it disproves the statement “Meanwhile, atheism leads to despair and big-waistlines.”.
nigga, there are plenty of fat church goers.
This is one of the most ignorant articles I have ever read, trying to equate fatness with atheism is really stupid. Atheists are more intelligent on average, so we tend to look after our health and well being more than others. True atheists are almost always slim, just take a look at all of the prominent atheists and you will see what I mean. Religion is the product of ignorance and stupidity, so having articles like this on ROK lowers the quality of the website.
Also atheists don’t have a spiritual void, most of us are intelligent enough to realise that we need to found our own meaning in life, not relie on lies from 2000 years ago.
The core idea behind empiricism is that perception is the window to
reality, and that any understanding of reality must be perceptually
confirmed.
People say that seeing is believing. But seeing is not believing;
thinking is believing. Seeing is knowing; everything else is emotive
hope, probabilistic guess or reasoned theory.
Neitzsche have put forward the argument that without sensory input of
any kind, a man would fail to be Christian, and that religious belief
is conditional upon personal circumstances. Their view is partially
correct. Men inherit their faith from their ancestors and certainly, for
the unreflective man, faith is a circumstantial habituated practice.
The reflective man however has a problem. He questions and challenges
his faith, and if logically consistent, finds that there is nothing in
the Universe which supports his view. Thieves prosper, the good are
murdered, and the completely innocent suffer tremendously.
Empirically, there is no way he can confirm that Gay Marriage and
Adultery are objectively wrong. Statistically he may be able to find
data that supports a respective religious vision, but he cannot find any
data the confirms a creed. As commentators Brockmann and Nietzsche
imply, ought cannot be derived from is and hence the implication that
transcendent truths are unknowable, and therefore arbitrary fairy
stories; cognitive products of the imagination for whatever reason.
They are, of course, logically correct.
And yet they are wrong.
Because their understanding of the human perceptual capacity is in error.
I wish to illustrate what I mean by starting off with a passage of
biblical
text. Not because I want them to believe in the veracity of the Bible,
but because the text succinctly explains the difference between
believers and non-believers and problem of Modernity.
As it is written: God hath given them the spirit of insensibility;
eyes that they should not see; and ears that they should not hear,
until this present day.
(Romans 11:8 Douay-Rheims)
Note the term insensibility, the inability to sense or perceive.This
is not a play on words, as different translations of text refer to same
phenomenon. The Christian fathers did not think of faith as a
cognitive
process but a sensory modality. In their view, unbelief was not the
product of faulty thinking, it was the product of insensibility; a
perceptual failure.
To them, faith was a sixth sense; an eye or ear-like faculty which
allowed us to perceive non-physical realities. When the Christian
fathers
asserted that men should not commit adultery, they were not plucking
something out of thin air or making a rational calculation based up
their value preferences; they were being empirical.
The atheist mistake is in assuming that the divisions amongst the
religious are due to differing rationalizations instead of differing
interpretations. To use our nearly blind group of men analogy, the
atheist or rationalist blind man thinks that the man affected with the
severe cataracts is making things up, whilst the man with the cataract is
trying to understand what is going on. If you were to take a group of
men with cataracts and present them with a the image of a person at a
distance, one will say its Fred, some will say its Bill and the others
will say its Judy, they will all know that they have percieved something
even if they are not sure what it is, but the blind men, being unable
to perceive, will assume that the cataract affected, are making things
up.
What separates the Moderns from the rest of humanity is in this
perception of “something else” beyond the five-sense barrier. And
Christians ,in particular, should understand that from the atheist
perspective (those who lack the faith sense), religion is logically
ridiculous.
And it is this fact that poses a huge practical problem for
conservatives and it also gives an inkling of what we are up against.
When Christopher Hitchins or his ilk argue that faith is just
superstition and “fairy stories”, they are absolutely correct from their
objective point of view. You see, Hitchins et al, live their life
assuming with certitude, that there is no such thing as “faith-sight”
and any statements with regard to “faith-colours or forms” are
arbitrary. The honest ones amongst them are like blind men, who truly
and honestly believe that there is no such thing as sight, and any
statements regarding such are rubbish. Trying to convince these men, by
rational argument, of the existence of transcendent moralities is by
logical necessity, going to fail. In order to get the get the militant
atheists on side you’ve got to get them to “see”. They literally can’t
think their way towards religion because
good thinking without faith is irreligious. Or to put it another way,
arguing with them is like arguing with a blind man about the nature of colour, there is no way you can get him to “see” red.
This “faith-sense”, not being a renationalisation process, cannot
therefore be experienced by acts of rationalization. Blind people
cannot experience colours by study or by rational argument; they have to sense them.
The only way past this impasse is by some way granting them the
ability to “see”. The Church fathers also recognised that this faith
sense was not “intrinsic” to our being but was rather a bestowed gift
of God.* That means petitionary prayer; asking God to give our enemies
“sight”. This is why there will be no HBD or atheistic conservative
revival (they may be able to give the appearance of conservative revival
but it will eventually degenerate into leftist decay, it’s a movement
trying to empty a bathtub with a seive). They are operating within the
same sensory frame of reference as do the atheists.
The West is doomed unless men start praying to God for revival
and conversion of their enemies. When the monasteries start
reappearing, that’s when you know it’ll all be right.
Many thanks to Social Pathologist.
You wrote all that non-sense only to end with….”The West is doomed unless men start praying to God for revival
and conversion of their enemies”
That’s it. Throw up or hands and pray to the sky-man. That will save us. *Rolls eyes*.
I suspect the article is satire. If there’s one thing I learned while serving in the military and traveling the world, is that the human experience is complex and varied. People don’t fit into nice neat boxes, no matter how hard you want it to be true. There are VERY few absolutes when dealing with human beings.
Hmm. I’m atheist, thin, and politically conservative. But if praying to an invisible man keeps people skinny, more power to ’em!
Religions also tell us not to fornicate, which is a big part of what this site was about, I thought…
I’m not a religious person, but I’m not in favor of people being fat walruses, and I for one like to stay in shape. Most religious people that I know are gluttons and hypocrites too, so I’d say that religion is not necessary to have some discipline and keep the fat off.
for answers to your questions about the relation between religion and science see http://www.sultan.org
Religion is dying in America. I will be more than happy to piss on its corpse.
Lololzzollolzz.
What are you going to replace it with? Do you understand the underlying psychology of America?
Check out my posts on narcissism if you want to see our post-religion future.
Former pastor of one of the largest Baptist churches in America. He’s now in prison for banging a 16 year girl he was “consoling”
And?
It is a fallacy to say that because fatties are atheists, atheists are fatties.
Wow, the solipsism is powerful with this post. It’s actually painful to read.
[Members of group opposing mine] ARE A BUNCH OF [insulting term]. [Followup with selective sampling]. Q.E.D.
Utter nonsense. The simplest google search of “religion and obesity” will bring you a number of scholarly articles linking religion to obesity in a number of varying ways.
“The simplest google search of “religion and obesity” will bring you a
number of scholarly articles linking religion to obesity in a number of
varying ways.”
Ok, let’s see them.
All the atheist fatties are screaming “NO! NO! NO! LIES! ALL LIES! I AM TOTALLY NOT FAT! YOU’RE STUPID FOR BELIEVING IN JESUS! I’M NOT LISTENING LALALALA!”
you lost me, samseau. you offer only anecdotal evidence and personal beliefs to support your claims. just because some bullshit religion encourages people to stay in shape does not mean they`ll actually do it. people,religious or not, are either born ambitious or they`re not – and that ambition manifests itself by keeping their bodies in a relatively good condition. that is the ONLY drive that matters here, the inner drive to be better. you either have it or you don`t.
obesity is not and cannot be predicted or correlated by factors like religion, age, race, political views, etc, and i find it revolting that you would imply that such a correlation exists.
in closing, as i always say, keep your goddamn religion to yourself. asshole.
I think some of the commenters adequately squashed this one.
But from someone who is literally preaching religious doctrine here, I don’t expect much by way of solid science.
Needless to say, this is contradicted by two key facts. Obesity is negatively correlated with IQ, and IQ is positively correlated with atheism. How do you square that circle?
Your move.
“I think some of the commenters adequately squashed this one.”
lulz
Your #1 belief: “Men and women are genetically different, both physically and mentally. Sex roles evolved in all mammals. Humans are not exempt.” In other words you guys believe in evolution. Yet you are against Atheism, which is based on non-fairy tale and scientific beliefs, including evolution. I was looking for some types of contradictions on your site, but I couldn’t believe I found it so easily lol…
You clearly haven’t been to an American church in a very long time if you think religious women are “slim”.
For what it’s worth, I’m a lean atheist.
Cool story brah.
Most people in America are white, fat and Christian.
Fail.
Nope.
Research Shows Religion Plays A Major Role In Health, Longevity
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/05/990517064323.htm
Scientific Fact
1. In March of 2011, USA News and World Report declared that an Arizona State University study suggests that fat stigma has gone global.In addition, parts of the world that once viewed being overweight
favorably now hold negative views concerning having extra pounds and
also hold negative views concerning overweight individuals.
Poor self-esteem has been linked to an increase in suicide attempts and atheists have higher rates of suicide than the general population.Obese atheists likely have significantly higher rates of suicide than the general public.
2. While there are differences between genders and races, in general those who go to church once or more each week can look forward to about seven more years than those who never attend.
Life expectancy beyond age 20 averages another 55.3 years, to age 75, for those who never attend church compared to another 62.9 years, age 83, for those who go more than once a week.
3. A large Canadian study involving 70,000 adults found that those who
attended Church services regularly had fewer depressive symptoms than
average.
4. One major study involving over 2,000 young people aged between 11-18 showed church attendance and involvement in a church-based youth group reduced risk-taking behaviors such as smoking, alcohol use, marijuana use, truancy and depression, even when controlling for socioeconomic status and self-esteem.
Regarding sexual activity, church attendance and youth involvement reduced sexual activity. Furthermore, the risk-taking behavior that often occurs in early adulthood was less marked in the religious cohort.Self-esteem was also higher among those attending church.
A survey of 1,100 American adults aged over 18 found that those who were religious had a lower number of sexual partners than those who were not.
Q.E.T.
My work here is done.
This is fucking golden. hahaha
Oh fuck off you twat.
Just because American atheists like American christians are fat sacks of shit. Is no reason to say you have to believe in some sky wizard in order to be capable of looking after yourself.
Rest of us just you know. Don’t eat shit constantly which helps immensely. Food. You might have heard of it in between fistfuls of fast “food”
“Oh fuck off you twat.”
You seem a reasonable chap.
P.S. You say “shit” a lot.
No I’m not reasonable. I’m far too British and thus superior for that.
But seriously. My advice? Read some classic philosophy. Aristotle, Kant, Hume. Then you’ll realise you don’t need a fictional man in the sky to tell you how to live your life. We already figured out how to live well.
Not eating garbage is the first step. So put down the “ham”burger
Religion: against gluttony but advocates rape. Religion: against overeating yet it’s figure head is responsible for more blood shed than any other single thing in the history of the world. Religion: doesn’t allow you to get second helpings at dinner time but does allow priests to remove the foreskin of a newborn baby with their teeth. Yeah religion = awesome :/ (for the record I am against gluttony, religion, rape, touching children’s genitalia with my mouth, and murder)
I was shocked when it occurred to me one day that there is nothing in the Bible against pedophilia. So go ahead and bang that 6-year-old (just make sure you marry her first or else you’re both guilty of fornication).
Wow, you guys really are dumb. Pretty sure I have the perfect weight, muscle mass, and bone density for my age and height according to tanita scales and I don’t believe in god. In England the majority of people don’t believe in god and I am pretty sure we are, in general, a lot thinner than you lot. This entire webpage was written by fat people, am I wrong? Every article under the “game” section points to the fact that the writer was a fat ugly middle aged man who lives in their mums basement; pretending they slept with women who they won over using their wit and charm. If you said those ‘witty’ words to an intelligent woman you wouldn’t have a chance in hell of getting their number. Back to the point, I think religion is lovely in the fact it gives people hope and something to look forward to and live by. As a biological scientist myself, everything points to the fact that there is no god. I sometimes try and convince myself that there is, it’s a lovely thought and people that I know that do believe are happy enough, but the people writing this clearly are taking religion and using it to bash other people. Genuine god lovers are often overly nice people who wouldn’t say a bad word about anybody because it is against their morals. You guys are just morons who have been told since you were a child that god is real and you need to take out all your hate and sexual frustration on people who don’t believe. Do you actually know anything about biology? Or your religion which preaches kindness to others for that matter? I’m guessing not because it’s Americans like you who shout their fucking mouths off without knowing what they are on about and don’t let anybody else share their opinion.
check these two maps:
http://www.fatherthywillbedone.com/irreligion-becoming-americas-new-pagan-religion-or-secular-church/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epidemiology_of_obesity
and feel the failure of your logic!
I bet you have a really tiny penis.
This is why the bible belt is full of Walmart powered scooter behemoths correct? Atheism is to blame?
More likely that slovenly tubs who think they have dominion over every living thing on the planet and do not need to twaddle over minutia like calories and excercise, just let God provide and guide.. and if you die in a diabetic coma, who gives a fuck? You got the afterlife to continue chowing down on.
Did that sound offensive? Well it’s the reverse of this post’s assumption.
Sorry, this post totally went off the fucking rails right from the banner headline on down that i didn’t really need to read it.
I’m atheist and proud. And fit. Personal responsibility is a choice. Religion got fuck all to do with. I resent the implication.
Amen, brother! Not sure about up North, but down here in Dixie we’re just covered in Good Christian Landwhales. Praise the Lord and pass the biscuits!
Religious people are studid, no matter what they called them self or their invincible friend.
Those whom claim to know everything lack the wits to understand how little they comprehend.
have you ever seen islamic women, my friend? they fatten them up. which might largely be precisely be because of their fasting practices, their dietary habits.
high carb, high sugar, combined with not allowed to leave the home.
check wiki islam on this.
http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Muslim_Statistics_-_Health_and_Disability#Obesity
Do you realize your argumentation is actually very atheistic?
Does anyone really still believe in the bunch of ancient jewish myths and chronicles caled bible? No, really?
You really are a moron in every piece of ____ you write!
The great thing about the Oriental traditions is they are neither theist nor atheist. So they can accomadate both, and take the best from both, leaving the worst of both behind for the Occident to argue over.
Hi,
I’m a girl, 28, atheist, I’m a french baker AND my last pants are… US 24.
…Perhaps I should think you’re dumb because of you’re religion : When you believe you’re right, there’s no need to think for yourself… Or perhaps it is because you’re american ?
In my country, what you’re doing here is a CRIME.
Hi,
I’m a girl, 28, atheist, I’m a french baker AND my last pants are… US 24.
…Perhaps I should think you’re dumb because of your religion : When you believe you’re right, there’s no need to think for yourself… Or perhaps it is because you’re american ?
In my country, what you’re doing here is a CRIME.
Good thing we’re not in your country, fascist.
Just Saiyan.
http://curmudgeonjoy.blogspot.com.br/2009/01/list-of-idiots.html
Hahaha This article couldn’t be any more absurd. Hey Samseau, what the actual fuck are you talking about man?
Atheism is not a religon itself but a disagreement of supernatural belief. Philosopies with an atheistic bent include Secular Humanism and Objectivism.
A philosophy that bases its core views on subjective rather than objective interpretation is a religion in action if not in words.
Atheism is the seinfeld religion…the religion about “nothing.”
If atheism is a religion then abstinence is a sexual position. Bill Maher.
Bill Maher suffers from “liberalus ignoramus” syndrome so i wouldn’t put too much stock in his words.
Sometimes he does but he recently want against his fellow liberals while attacking Islam.
Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
Someone doesn’t impress me because they agree with me that the sun is definitely hot.
I dont impress easily.
Secular Humanism and Objectivism are examples of a nontheistic belief systems.
In theory yes, the problem arises when those who consider themselves such mimic religious zealotry when it goes beyond theory and into real world examples.
Great article…totally agree!
Standing O! lol 😀
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-u-LCC8ITRyw/UEoiloxnZdI/AAAAAAAACsk/WEwhSnUJyRE/s1600/I'm+an+atheist+-+debate+me.jpg
I’m pretty sure I read on Roosh’s blog that he doesn’t believe in a god. Is he a fattie?
You know, I really want to be like “atheists aren’t fat, that’s just a silly generalisation!” but I’m fat and I’m an atheist. So I guess I’ll just shut up and go lift some iron.
Seriously though, since I became a regular on ROK (it’s been about a year), I’ve been exposed to a lot a religious messages. When I used to navigate the atheists communities, most of the religious people you come across are there to convince you that you’re stupid and that God definitely exists, which of course never leads to anything productive. On ROK, I’ve never come across a Christian trying to convince me that God exists, the religious articles only talk about the doctrines and their benefits. I don’t think I’ll ever be able to believe in a God but the more I read about it, the more I’m realising that religious doctrine is an untapped source of wisdom, regardless of my personal beliefs.
I think what we often do as atheists is throw away the baby with the bath water. We discard the bible entirely because of some stupid passages but we also assume that, because of those stupid passages, the whole thing isn’t worth reading. I’m realising that, whether or not you think God inspired the bible, it was written in a time when the patriarchy was in full force and that means there are valuable neomasculine principles in there.
Wow, just spot on, my thoughts exactly. I’ve also seen the value of religious ideas, without even being even remotely under the impression a God exists. The more degeneracy I see in atheism, the more I’m inclined to follow religious rules, just as a conservative.
Quick hypothetical question; If you could choose to magically gain the ability to believe in God, would you do so?
That’s a really good question. I’m tempted to say yes because of all the benefits outlined on ROK and I feel like a belief in God would ciment the doctrine and give me an unmoving purpose in life and in this path of self-improvement. The hesitation comes from the fact that many people who believe in God commit and have commited terrible acts of violence.
However, maybe that was just a problem with these individuals and not with the doctrine (at least in the case of Christians, I wouldn’t say the same thing for Muslims…) so I guess that if I had the certainty that my personality wouldn’t change, I would choose to believe in God.
The problem is that there’s many flavours of Atheism, though. For someone not familiar, they all look the same – much the same way anyone not a member of a particular faith might generalise all Christians, Buddhists, Hindus or Muslims to be the same, without recognising that each sect of the faith has it’s own subtle differences in the way they live, worship or read their holy books.
Where we get a bad rap, is that most religious people (Christians more so) tend to encounter the capital ‘A’ version of atheism. By and large, these are often people raised as Christians, who have turned away from their faith and gained a rather big chip on their shoulder. To them, their declaration of faithlessness has become a proxy for religious faith. It’s not only important to declare themselves atheist, but to seek out others to convert to their faith. Belief in the transcendent has been replaced by the erroneous belief in ‘hard/scientific fact.’ The error being that they often can’t see that their facts are just belief. These are the types that can dismiss a belief in gods and predestination, yet can’t see that past a certain point, all scientific fact gives way to theory and supposition.
Take the question of what was there in the beginning, before the big bang/creation of the world and by logical extension, how did that which created it get born from nothing. Science can only postulate that matter came together, a reaction started and ‘bang’ suddenly over an indeterminate time scale, stars and planets formed. How did that matter get there in the first place though? So far the main contender is ‘string theory’ – these little ‘vibrating strings of information somehow formed into matter and antimatter. Neat, but you know what the next question is…
Religion is a bit simpler – God created it. In some stories, God just always was, is and will be. In others, there was another God or gods before him. But how did God/gods spring into existence in the first place?
Religion tends to be a little more resilient when it comes to accepting metaphysical uncertainties. Religious people can accept that there is no fact, or that a concept is beyond their understanding. Capital ‘A’ atheists, not so. For them to be uncertain is to lose the very reason they believe. So a bit of a double whammy for those who became Atheists to rebel against a conservative, Christian upbringing, since they experience loss of faith twice.
Now for those of us who are regular atheists, we’ve likely walked a different path, trying other cultures spiritual beliefs as we find our place in the world. We might have had a chip on our shoulders for being lied to when evaluating what we were taught, compared to what we experienced, but we have seen that spirituality isn’t a bad thing. People need to believe in certainty. So if that form that certainty takes (God, happy after life) is something that inspires them to behave in a manner that is moral and right, then they are right in their belief. As an atheist (small ‘a’), your resilience comes from being comfortable enough with your beliefs to accept that they aren’t beliefs that will work for anyone else.
Along that path, you probably do begin to notice a lot of common themes. Treating people the way you’d like to be treated keeps everybody happy. Don’t murder each other. Your true purpose in life is not to save the world, rather it is settle down, raise children, and ensure that moral and right values are passed to each generation after your own. There is a time and place for men and women to intermingle. There are also many more times when men tend to men’s business and women tend to women’s business.
To a modern mind trained to think in modern terms of equality, a lot of that knowledge seems barbaric and stupid. It’s only when you talk to the scholars, that you see that there is a logic to it. Other stuff, you need only look back to the early part of last century to see that these things were part of our society’s structure, not so much because of belief or doctrine, but because it worked well in maintaining an orderly society.
Ever been to a Baptist (especially Southern Baptist) church? Some of the folks you see waddle in can barely squeeze all their fat into the pews. And they’re always going on about how there’s nothin’ like Sister So-and-So’s home cookin’. And of course there is the obligatory weekly pilgrimage to that holiest of eateries, Chick-Fil-A. I’m not saying I haven’t seen my share of fat atheists, or that all Baptists are fat, or even that it particularly bothers me that some are (as it happens, I’m a bit of a chubby chaser, and aside from the neckbeardage, I think the guys pictured here are quite bangable, by my standards). But it’s just kind of funny when people who won’t have a glass of wine or listen to any music other than classical music or old hymns or even kiss before they are married (or engaged, for the really wild, liberal ones), lest they offend God, gleefully and without remorse engage in the sin of gluttony.