Gone Fisking

Fisking is where an argument is contradicted one paragraph at a time, rather than responded to in its entirety, therby avoiding having to address the overall message. It often includes sarcasm and derision, and can be extremely funny in the right hands. The word comes from articles by the journalist Robert Fisk which were often pulled to pieces by political bloggers.

It is a tactic often used by "keyboard warrior" - people who release their anger through the relatively safe medium of the internet, typically on discussion boards. It involves aggressive language that they would never dare use in real life where there would probably be physical repercussions. 
  
Subconsciously, the keyboard warrior imagines he (and it is usually a "he") is really a warrior, fighting for a cause, with a keyboard instead of a sword, but in a safe and anonymous environment.  Ad hominem is often the result. 

But going back to fisking,  is it really appropriate on a discussion board? If we consider a discussion board to represent, well, a discussion, then fisking is the equivalent of heckling. Imagine you've been asked to provide a justiication for, say, democracy, and as you begin your explanation someone in the audience jumps up and interrupts you after every sentence. Now in real life, that person would be thrown out of the room!

The other downside of fisking a discussion is that instead of a single response to the overall message, we end up with multiple responses. Each of those responses may require a separate response, and if each of those responses is fisked again, then the discussion quickly suffocates under an avalanche as new arguments are spawned exponentially. And that's another way to avoid an awkward topic and disguise a lost argument. 

Essentially, fisking posts on a discussion board is an elaborate avoidance mechanism and a demonstration of passive-agressive behaviour. Here's a case study of how an argument was fisked to death by a Christian Apologist, apparently as a means to avoid the logical arguments being made...

1 – The Unadulterated Post

Firstly, let's put right your incorrect assumptions about what I've said. I have never said that prayer is meaningless in fact I've said the exact opposite - prayer can be very beneficial. I have not dismissed off hand your suggestion that a religious lifestyle can increase life expectancy, and in fact I've agreed that I think it's possible. And I've provided explanations for this.

You suggested a correlation between attendance of "religious service" and life expectancy, but now you have a new hypothesis that "those who pray--and are presumably closer to God through their religious practice--live longer." You could be right on both counts - but you're not providing any evidence or citations. I'm more than happy to speculate about these things in the absence of evidence, as long as we're clear that it is speculation.

Your statistics seem to be limited to Christians in the USA (however without a citation I don't know where your figures come from). I've provided you with research from modern-day secular countries which explains how it's the mainstream community which is the cause, and you ignore this by referring to "atheist-controlled societies" where Christians are "martyred" and "denied care and education". You can't assume a global correlation by limiting your purview to the USA.

You also still seem to maintain that if a correlation supports your intuition, then it is good enough to demonstrate causation. That is a faith-based position, which is as flawed as assuming that spending on science, space, and technology causes suicides by hanging, strangulation and suffocation where the correlation coefficient between the statistics is a remarkable 99.2%

http://revjimc.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/spurious-correlations_10.html

2 - The Fisked Version from a Christian Apologist

	Commentary
Firstly, let's put right your incorrect assumptions about what I've said. I have never said that prayer is meaningless in fact I've said the exact opposite - prayer can be very beneficial. I have not dismissed off hand your suggestion that a religious lifestyle can increase life expectancy, and in fact I've agreed that I think it's possible. And I've provided explanations for this.
I welcome your correction of your posted perspective.	Very funny and no time wasted before the passive-agressive behaviour appears! The first paragraph was illustrating misrepresentations of what I'd said previously by the Christian Apologist. My perspective is consistent and has not been “corrected”! But 10 points to the Apologist for avoiding having to admit that he used two fallacious straw man arguments!
You suggested a correlation between attendance of "religious service" and life expectancy, but now you have a new hypothesis that "those who pray--and are presumably closer to God through their religious practice--live longer." You could be right on both counts - but you're not providing any evidence or citations. I'm more than happy to speculate about these things in the absence of evidence, as long as we're clear that it is speculation.
I referred to a specific graph that due to some posting error on my part didn't appear here. That graph did correlate attendance at religious services rather than prayer specifically with greater life expectancy, true. I again point out that prayer is part and parcel of "religiosity" and that the two are inextricably linked, and that is beyond "speculation." Prayer remains part of the total package leading to greater life expectancy supported by the study.	The apologist has ignored the two points. First, that providing a graph is not evidence. Graphs are based on numbers. Where did the numbers come from? It seems we will never know. Secondly, the correlation is not disputed. But correlations are meaningless without causation. This piece of fisking is pretty much a non-sequitur. Nothing in this interruption relates to what was said and it's just a means to avoid the points.
Your statistics seem to be limited to Christians in the USA (however without a citation I don't know where your figures come from). I've provided you with research from modern-day secular countries which explains how it's the mainstream community which is the cause...
You for your part have provided no supporting links for that allegation apart from your expressed opinion on the matter. You wish to define my position-supported by a study, at least indirectly--as "speculation," and wish to define your own position as "providing research" when you have done nothing of the kind!	There was a link provided with research from secular countries, but the Apologist can't see it. If he honestly hasn't seen it that's not his fault – I will remind him where to find it later. It's disappointing that he asserts that no research has been provided as if it's a fact, rather than politely asking for a reminder on how to find it. This kind of passive agression is common among fiskers. Also note that the point being made was that the apologist has provided no citations, and the Apologist simply avoids this point. Also note that the Apologist has actually split a sentence so as to fisk each part. This is something I've never seen before. Fisking a paragraph can be valid. Fisking a sentence is a highly dubious tactic. But fisking parts of a sentence? Extraordinary! I can't believe that this person would be so aggressive in real life, and interrupt people in mid-sentence in this way.
...and you ignore this by referring to "atheist-controlled societies" where Christians are "martyred" and "denied care and education".
I'm not ignoring anything--I'm stating a fact. In countries where Christians are persecuted and slaughtered, as has been and still is the case in atheist-controlled societies, they naturally have an overall lowered life expectancy. That's not a "level playing field." A level playing field--in which results would be more meaningful--would be to compare life expectancy in a society where both Christians and atheists have the same rights and privileges.	It's unclear what “fact” the Apologist is “stating” to, but even if he is, it's completely irrelevant to the half-sentence he's referring to. The apologist is using fisking to avoid the evidence provided from Europe which demonstrates that the benefits from attending religious services depends on the culture. That's why the correlation only appears in the USA. Limiting statistics to a single country does the exact opposite of leveling the playing field – it's introducing a bias.
You can't assume a global correlation by limiting your purview to the USA.
You can't ignore the "level playing field" factor stated above. Very few societies have equal rights for all religious views, including atheism. The US is one such society.	Again, the point made about the USA and a global correlation is completely avoided. The data which the Apologist has ignored (or can't see) is from Scandanavia and Northern Europe. The suggestion that these countries don't have equal rights for all religious views is bizarre. And the suggestion that atheists have equal rights in the US is debateable!
You also still seem to maintain that if a correlation supports your intuition, then it is good enough to demonstrate causation. That is a faith-based position, which is as flawed as assuming that spending on science, space, and technology causes suicides by hanging, strangulation and suffocation where the correlation coefficient between the statistics is a remarkable 99.2%
http://revjimc.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/spurious-correlations_10.html
Drawing correlations based on remarkable coincidence out of thin air may be fun and amusing but doing so has no bearing on matters that are integral to a particular study. Prayer is part and parcel of "religiosity" and inseparable from such.	The point being made, i.e. that correlations must not be equated with causation, is completely avoided. The Apologist is assuming that a particular correlation must be a coincidence because he believes that correlation is a coincidence. But he assumes the correlation he refers to cannot be a coincidence because he happens to believe the cause is real!
Again though I'm glad you mention that because you have again demonstrated holding a faith-based position yourself. You have faith that there is research somewhere--which you have not provided--that supports your viewpoint, and most of what you offer on this board--however you might wish to disguise it--is an invitation to "take your (unsupported) word" on matters.	An irrelevant postscript given that the research was previously provided but the Apologist didn't see it. Again, a polite enquiry as to where the evidence was posted would have saved this hostility. Anyway, this false accusation is then used to create an argument about having faith which is factually incorrect, and in any case, totally irrelevant. It's just more avidance. The final piece of aggression involves applying the incorrect assumption of an unsupported argument in this thread and extrapolating it to dismiss “most” of what I say!

Spurious Correlations

According to a Christian Apologist, there is…

"…increasing life expectancy the more often one attends religious service. A 20 year old who attends a religious service more than once a week has an 8 year greater life expectancy than one who never attends religious services.  

Obviously much needs to be sifted from such and variables considered, but I would proffer that it is a pretty dramatic difference! 

God does indeed sometimes say "yes" to our prayers for healing and longer life!"

Now… I am willing to believe that a religious lifestyle could increase life expectancy. Unfortunately, the Christian Apologist hasn't provided any evidence and is making a massive assumption based on correlation rather than causation.  I'm guessing his statistics come from the USA.

There is an interesting psychological overview of the subject here.  A brief extract…

When we compare people living in the same country, religious people enjoy a health advantage if they are part of a large majority, as is true of the U.S. That advantage disappears if religious people are in the minority.

Why? One plausible reason that non religious people in the U.S. have worse health is that they are largely excluded from participation in politics and find that they have less of a role to play in their local communities because religious people consider them unworthy. One key reason for this is that churches play a central role in organizing charities and civic organizations.

In predominantly secular countries, community involvement is very high so that atheists are much more active in their communities than they would be in a comparatively religious country such as the U.S. Instead of feeling like second class citizens, the non religious are fully integrated in their communities with all of the health advantages this brings. So what had looked like advantages of religion could be simply an advantage of being in the mainstream.

But what about the assumption of causation that the Christian Apologist has made?  Here are some incredibly compelling correlations from the excellent http://tylervigen.com website. I think everyone would agree that assuming causation (rather than determining a causation) can be misleading…

US spending on science, space, and technology correlates with Suicides by hanging, strangulation and suffocation

1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004	2005	2006	2007	2008	2009
Spending (Millions of today's dollars) (US OMB)	18,079	18,594	19,753	20,734	20,831	23,029	23,597	23,584	25,525	27,731	29,449
Deaths (US) (CDC)	5,427	5,688	6,198	6,462	6,635	7,336	7,248	7,491	8,161	8,578	9,000
Correlation: 0.992082

 Number people who drowned by falling into a swimming-pool correlates with Number of films Niclas Cage appeared in

	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004	2005	2006	2007	2008	2009
Deaths (US) (CDC)	109	102	102	98	85	95	96	98	123	94	102
Films (IMDB)	2	2	2	3	1	1	2	3	4	1	4
Correlation: 0.666004

People who drowned after falling out of a fishing boat correlates with Marriage rate in Kentucky

	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004	2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010
Deaths (US) (CDC)	19	16	9	12	15	10	11	7	2	5	1	1
Marriages per 1000 people (US Census)	10.9	9.8	9	9	9.1	8.8	8.7	8.4	7.8	7.9	7.6	7.4
Correlation: 0.952407

Divorce rate in Maine correlates with Per capita consumption of margarine (US)

	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004	2005	2006	2007	2008	2009
Divorces per 1000 people (US Census)	5	4.7	4.6	4.4	4.3	4.1	4.2	4.2	4.2	4.1
Pounds of margarine (USDA)	8.2	7	6.5	5.3	5.2	4	4.6	4.5	4.2	3.7
Correlation: 0.992558

Do atheists raise atheist children?

A Religious Apologist says...

"It should be noted that among children of atheists, there is a much larger percentage of those who apparently recognize the moral hole resulting form such who seek to pursue one religion or another than children of truly "religious" parents going the other direction."

I think the Apologist is trying to say that many people who are raised as atheists, do not remain as atheists in later life.  Obviously the "moral hole" comment is unsubsantiated but I'm happy to take the statistical claim at face value because it certainly wouldn't surprise me if it was true.  

Now I can't speak for all infidels, but from personal experience, I didn't raise my children as atheists. Rather, I simply didn't indoctrinate them one way or the other. 

(But... Can it be argued that no indoctrination is equivalent to raising them as atheists?)

Anyway, I think indoctrination is wrong and I'd be a hypocrite if I indoctrinated them. It seemed to me that the best approach was to let them make up their own minds. Obviously I would answer any religious questions they had, and they received well rounded religious education at school. And I would always explain that my religious views were just my opinion and they should explore other opinions 

But there was no infidel Sunday school for my children, there were no infidel traditions or rituals to abide by, there was no threat or punishment or guilt trip for not believing something or other. There was no pressure to believe or not.  I encouraged my children to think for themselves, to come to their own conclusions, and not believe something just because I believed it.  

How did they turn out? Two are infidels and one goes to church with her kids because her mother-in-law expects it. If I had to guess why they turned out to be non-religious I'd say it was because there was no pressure to be religious. If we had lived in a religious culture when they were growing up there's a higher chance they would be religious.

I'm totally fine with whatever choices my children make because I don't care what religion they decide to choose or not choose, as long as they are happy and fulfilled and leading interesting and worthwhile lives. And they seem to be doing just that. (My grandson appears to be a natural sceptic but that's another story.)

Now... Having taken the Apologist claim at face value, let's look at some statistics which paint a slightly different picture. 

These figures from the Pew Forum focus on belief as a child compared to currentx.  It shows the non-believers are the only group growing in significant numbers, with Christians suffering the largest decline.

The full document can be found here

Extract:

The biggest gains due to changes in religious affiliation have been among those who say they are not affiliated with any particular religious group or tradition. Overall, 7.3% of the adult population says they were unaffiliated with any particular religion as a child. Today, however, 16.1% of adults say they are unaffiliated, a net increase of 8.8 percentage points. Sizeable numbers of those raised in all religions – from Catholicism to Protestantism to Judaism – are currently unaffiliated with any particular religion.

The unaffiliated group provides a good example of the high degree of religious movement that has taken place in the U.S. Overall, 3.9% of the adult population reports being raised without any particular religious affiliation but later affiliating with a religious group. However, more than three times as many people (12.7% of the adult population overall) were raised in a particular faith but have since become unaffiliated with any religious group.