Ravi Zacharias - no deathbed conversion to atheism. R.I.P.

[Lion IRC]

Pro-lifer, Christian apologist, former skeptic, philosopher.
...shared a birthday with Richard Dawkins (26th March)

Died 19th May, very soon after having being diagnosed with sarcoma.

Ravi Zacharias' great rhetorical method was to use his opponents own method of reasoning against them. (Technically, an ad hominem argument, albeit NOT a formal logical fallacy.) He also delivered the standard Christian/theist apologetic arguments with a lot more human emotion and passion which made him a popular apologist rather than a technical/intellectual apologist.

I liked him. But sadly, on the atheosphere, internet atheists seemed to fixate, not on his philosophical arguments, but rather his personal life. (Whether he should or shouldnt have called himself a PhD. Whether he did or didnt have an inappropriate relationship with a woman.)

Frederick Antony Ravi Kumar Zacharias. A man who rose from obscurity thanks in large part to the New Atheist movement. If it wasn't for Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris and Dennett, I probably never would have heard of him.

The harvest is plentiful, but the workers are few...

...and you would need to engage in philosophical analysis to determine whether philosophy was or wasn't useful in addressing existential 'why' questions. And you would be left asking Mr Hawking philosophical questions like 'why' he thinks philosophy is dead.

Christian apologist Ravi Zacharias uses a lovely rhetorical device to demolish post-modern, relativism. He presents an anecdote about how he and a Hindu are debating absolute truths and the superiority of Eastern religions which embrace many paths rather than a "Jesus Only" path.

Zacharias insists he is right. His opponent says no you're not. Zacharias sticks to his guns. His opponent becomes even more adamant. They continue at loggerheads. Then his opponent gradually starts to see why the "many paths" philosophy is self-refuting.

"...even a Hindu looks both ways before crossing the road."

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

The christian religion should be called Apologianity because it's got an army of excuse makers. Now we have excuse makers making excuses for the excuse makers.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Technically a logical fallacy, though not technically a logical fallacy. Lion, if he's addressing THE ARGUMENT it's pretty much exactly NOT technically ad hom.

But, hey, that's certainly a Xian approach to apology. Make up bullshit definitions to well-understood words and pretend you were profound.

 

[abaddon]

Ravi Zacharias' great rhetorical method was to use his opponents own method of reasoning against them. (Technically, an ad hominem argument, albeit NOT a formal logical fallacy.)

The difficulty that fundy theists have is a stubborn incomprehension of the opponent's reasoning. Whatever the opponent says goes through a warping process and then its that warped version of his stance that is addressed.

The result isn't ad hom, it's attacking a straw man. Fundy theists assume too much about the opponent and attack an imagination about his stance rather than attack what his stance actually is.

Christian apologist Ravi Zacharias uses a lovely rhetorical device to demolish post-modern, relativism. He presents an anecdote about how he and a Hindu are debating absolute truths and the superiority of Eastern religions which embrace many paths rather than a "Jesus Only" path.

Zacharias insists he is right. His opponent says no you're not. Zacharias sticks to his guns. His opponent becomes even more adamant. They continue at loggerheads. Then his opponent gradually starts to see why the "many paths" philosophy is self-refuting.

"...even a Hindu looks both ways before crossing the road."

This is a good example of the problem. The opponent's stance has not been understood at all.

The Hindu thinks Eastern religions are superior for being more universalist. So the argument is "there are many paths to God" by a universalist, against "Jesus Only" by an absolutist.

Somehow the Christian warped the Hindu's stance into "all religions are true but Christianity isn't".

But to argue that "Jesus Only" isn't true is not to deny Christianity may be a path to God.

It's not self-contradiction to argue the absolutist is wrong if you don't share his absolutism.

 

[Rhea]

This thread doesn't seem to have any point.
Can be summed up as, "BREAKING! Christian doesn't change mind on deathbed, like millions of other christians."

 

[Lion IRC]

Technically a logical fallacy, though not technically a logical fallacy. Lion, if he's addressing THE ARGUMENT it's pretty much exactly NOT technically ad hom.

But, hey, that's certainly a Xian approach to apology. Make up bullshit definitions to well-understood words and pretend you were profound.

Using a persons own position against them (in support of your own position) is technically an ad hominem argument but NOT a logical fallacy. Likewise, not every ad hominem is an abusive ad hominem.

Nicodemus answered and said unto him, How can these things be? Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?

This is not Jesus saying...your position is wrong because you are a teacher of the law. Neither is Jesus saying you're wrong because you aren't a teacher of the law. And yet Jesus is certainly 'playing the man'.

Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: “The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach...

Again, we see Jesus using the Pharisees' own position not AGAINST the Pharisees, but in support of what the Pharisees themselves teach. His ad hominem technique is...if the Pharisees are right, (and they are) then you should practice what they correctly teach. The position of the Pharisees is that everyone should observe the law. And Jesus isn't using the ad hominem device as an argument that the Pharisees are wrong because (...they dont practice what they preach.) Quite the opposite.

 

[Keith&Co.]

This thread doesn't seem to have any point.
Can be summed up as, "BREAKING! Christian doesn't change mind on deathbed, like millions of other christians."

You forgot the 'so neener neener neener.'

 

[Keith&Co.]

Using a persons own position against them (in support of your own position) is technically an ad hominem argument

Position?
You said he used their logic, not their position.

That's exactly not ad hom.

Now, you're pretending you said something else.

You've redefined ad hom before. Pointing out where your statement is wrong, no matter how proud you are of it, still isn't a personal attack made in the place of an argument. It just shows you were born under the Zodiac sign of The Karen.

 

[Lion IRC]

The difficulty that fundy theists have is a stubborn incomprehension of the opponent's reasoning. Whatever the opponent says goes through a warping process and then its that warped version of his stance that is addressed.

The result isn't ad hom, it's attacking a straw man. Fundy theists assume too much about the opponent and attack an imagination about his stance rather than attack what his stance actually is.

This is a good example of the problem. The opponent's stance has not been understood at all.

The Hindu thinks Eastern religions are superior for being more universalist. So the argument is "there are many paths to God" by a universalist, against "Jesus Only" by an absolutist.

Somehow the Christian warped the Hindu's stance into "all religions are true but Christianity isn't".

But to argue that "Jesus Only" isn't true is not to deny Christianity may be a path to God.

It's not self-contradiction to argue the absolutist is wrong if you don't share his absolutism.

Zacharias is proving his point by dogmatically insisting that there is only One Way - Jesus.

His opponent is dogmatically rejecting that position by arguing that dogmatic (binary) positions are invalid.

Zacharias : "No they're not"
His opponent : "Yes they are."
Zacharias : "No they're not"
His opponent : "Yes they are!"
Zacharias : "No they're not"
His opponent : "Yes they are!!!."

 

[Lion IRC]

Using a persons own position against them (in support of your own position) is technically an ad hominem argument

Position?
You said he used their logic, not their position.

Try using the quote function.

Now, you're pretending you said something else.

Says the person who doesnt/cant/wont use the quote function

You've redefined ad hom before.

Citation needed. (Hint - quote function.)

Pointing out where your statement is wrong

Where did that happen? In your mind? WOW. Congrats.
You must be so proud of yourself. You won an argument on the internet.

...It just shows you were born under the Zodiac sign of The Karen.

Ad hominem much?

 

[DBT]

The difficulty that fundy theists have is a stubborn incomprehension of the opponent's reasoning. Whatever the opponent says goes through a warping process and then its that warped version of his stance that is addressed.

The result isn't ad hom, it's attacking a straw man. Fundy theists assume too much about the opponent and attack an imagination about his stance rather than attack what his stance actually is.

This is a good example of the problem. The opponent's stance has not been understood at all.

The Hindu thinks Eastern religions are superior for being more universalist. So the argument is "there are many paths to God" by a universalist, against "Jesus Only" by an absolutist.

Somehow the Christian warped the Hindu's stance into "all religions are true but Christianity isn't".

But to argue that "Jesus Only" isn't true is not to deny Christianity may be a path to God.

It's not self-contradiction to argue the absolutist is wrong if you don't share his absolutism.

Zacharias is proving his point by dogmatically insisting that there is only One Way - Jesus.

His opponent is dogmatically rejecting that position by arguing that dogmatic (binary) positions are invalid.

Zacharias : "No they're not"
His opponent : "Yes they are."
Zacharias : "No they're not"
His opponent : "Yes they are!"
Zacharias : "No they're not"
His opponent : "Yes they are!!!."

It's not who asserts this or who asserts that, but who has evidence to support their assertion or has no evidence to support their assertion. As we should know, absence of evidence is an important factor.

 

[abaddon]

Zacharias is proving his point by dogmatically insisting that there is only One Way - Jesus.

His opponent is dogmatically rejecting that position by arguing that dogmatic (binary) positions are invalid.

Zacharias : "No they're not"
His opponent : "Yes they are."
Zacharias : "No they're not"
His opponent : "Yes they are!"
Zacharias : "No they're not"
His opponent : "Yes they are!!!."

Cab Driver: There are many streets to the museum.
Passenger: There is only one street to it!
Cab Driver: Really, there are several streets that'll get you there.
Passenger: No there isn't!
Cab Driver: Yes there are.
Passenger: Ah ha! You've self-refuted. You said there are many streets to the museum but you won't allow my one street gets me there! So, you pretended you are not a dogmatist but you are!

Do you understand that there is no "postmodern relativism" in the Hindu stance that "there are many paths to God"? It's not the same as saying that just any religious stance you hold must be accepted as true. Rejecting "Only Jesus!" isn't rejecting Christianity.

The problem here, as I had explained already, is the Christian incomprehension of the opponent's stance. The Hindu's idea of universalism is no shade of self-contradictory "absolute relativism". Actually the idea's very like what you were trying to say about the Blind Men and an Elephant parable.

 

[Learner]

The christian religion should be called Apologianity because it's got an army of excuse makers. Now we have excuse makers making excuses for the excuse makers.

Pretty much everyone comes under the Apologianity catagory then.


“Today’s scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality. ”

― Nikola Tesla

 

[DBT]

Yet, unlike religion, science has enabled outstanding work on understanding the natural world and driving technological advancement.

 

[Keith&Co.]

The christian religion should be called Apologianity because it's got an army of excuse makers. Now we have excuse makers making excuses for the excuse makers.

Pretty much everyone comes under the Apologianity catagory then.


“Today’s scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality. ”

― Nikola Tesla

He quoted on the internet....which i read on my tsblet...at the desk where i conduct training for operating nuclear missile fire control systems updated with the latest technology in computing and information acquisition.
I'm still trying to get my head around a missile gyroscope with no moving parts. No spinning inertial components, just lasers...somehow.

But still guides missiles to the intended target with demanding accuracy.
So, where exactly is the science 'excuse' being offered?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

The christian religion should be called Apologianity because it's got an army of excuse makers. Now we have excuse makers making excuses for the excuse makers.

Pretty much everyone comes under the Apologianity catagory then.

Not true. Vomit is vomit. Religious vomit is still vomit. So why the double standard?

 

[Politesse]

The christian religion should be called Apologianity because it's got an army of excuse makers. Now we have excuse makers making excuses for the excuse makers.

Is it really an army? The world's largest religion by a enormous margin, yet this secular website (with a google-searchable subforum devoted entirely to religious arguments) can only find maybe three Christian apologists willing to stop by on the regular. Where are all these teeming seas of apologists, don't they care about tilling the obviously prepared mission field?

 

[DBT]

The christian religion should be called Apologianity because it's got an army of excuse makers. Now we have excuse makers making excuses for the excuse makers.

Is it really an army? The world's largest religion by a enormous margin, yet this secular website (with a google-searchable subforum devoted entirely to religious arguments) can only find maybe three Christian apologists willing to stop by on the regular. Where are all these teeming seas of apologists, don't they care about tilling the obviously prepared mission field?

It's not an easy task for apologists to ply their trade on this forum. Which is probably why it is avoided. It's not as if a group of theists decide to come here and argue, so individual tend to get overwhelmed. The few that remain here are a hardy bunch.

A similar thing happened to me recently on a religious right site, something like twenty posters would pile in every time I made a remark, many of their responses were not polite or reasonable.

 

[Politesse]

The christian religion should be called Apologianity because it's got an army of excuse makers. Now we have excuse makers making excuses for the excuse makers.

Is it really an army? The world's largest religion by a enormous margin, yet this secular website (with a google-searchable subforum devoted entirely to religious arguments) can only find maybe three Christian apologists willing to stop by on the regular. Where are all these teeming seas of apologists, don't they care about tilling the obviously prepared mission field?

It's not an easy task for apologists to ply their trade on this forum. Which is probably why it is avoided. It's not as if a group of theists decide to come here and argue, so individual tend to get overwhelmed. The few that remain here are a hardy bunch.

A similar thing happened to me recently on a religious right site, something like twenty posters would pile in every time I made a remark, many of their responses were not polite or reasonable.

Weak-sauce army then. Shouldn't they be able to dog-pile you, with their severe numbers advantage and all?

 

[DBT]

It's not an easy task for apologists to ply their trade on this forum. Which is probably why it is avoided. It's not as if a group of theists decide to come here and argue, so individual tend to get overwhelmed. The few that remain here are a hardy bunch.

A similar thing happened to me recently on a religious right site, something like twenty posters would pile in every time I made a remark, many of their responses were not polite or reasonable.

Weak-sauce army then. Shouldn't they be able to dog-pile you, with their severe numbers advantage and all?

I'm just saying that it may be difficult task for theists to defend their faith on this forum for a number of reasons.