The atheist and the grave, now there is a situation where the soul without God is truly conflicted. Ravi has a lifetime of experience combating the dead end philosophies of the "enlightened minds" of our times. Nietzsche is uncovered as the wretched genius he was, dying in an insane asylum of syphilis. The history of influence Darwin had over Marx, Hitler, and Sigmund Freud. Atheism is the murderer of hundreds of millions. Read this book for God's sake.

This books is based, from it's bases, on transparently mistaken assumptions, and goes on from there to refute the castle in the air it has just build - tediously, and with glaring logical mistakes to boot.

This is evident even in the synopsis:

"Atheism is a world without God. Its true nature-whether disguised in Eastern mysticism or American cynicism-is despair."

That's an banality, followed by a unfounded a value judgment, with an extreme oversification thrown in for good measure. It simply isnt so.

For one, there are many more types of atheism than "eastern mysticism" and "american cynicism".

For another, an atheist will clearly tell you that it's quite the contrary; the awe and joy of seeing your children grow, or the wonder of a sunshine are basic human experiences - and they're not improved by wrapping them into dusty theories about vengeful deities brimming with rules that your kids must follow or feathered serpents that cause the sun to rise. Far from it; the sheer joy and beauty of such experiences is dulled and trivialized by filtering them through the lens of whatever crackpot theories you elect to see them through.

The book then goes on from there to claim that unless you filter how you experience life through some rigid set of unlikely theories (whether that happens to be Islam, hare krishna or, in his particular choice, intolerant christianity) there is nothing but angst and despair for you.

The rest of the book follows very much along the same lines, whether it's recycling silly old arguments (the prime unmoved mover and such) or adding the authors own spin on them.

Overall, I'd say the book is entirely worthless, unless you already believe this stuff and yearn for proclamations that anyone who doesnt is having a terrible time and suffering lots. In that case, this is the book for you - otherwise, avoid.

E.

The author isn't interested in examining atheism, merely attacking it. RZ misquotes more famous authors in an attempt to justify his views. He seems to be more interested in why he thinks atheists are miserable, despairing people (we're not!) than in an honest and honest exploration of why people become atheists or how we live our lives. This book is going into the trash can where it belongs.

The main thesis for this book is: "Atheists don't have morals, and they can't know what is Good or Bad."

Let me make it clear: I was brought up in the Hindu tradition in urban, southern India. Originally, in Hinduism, eating non-vegetarian food is a Sin. In fact, hurting a living being -- human or animal -- is a Sin. Had I been a deep, spiritual follower of Hinduism, I would consider all Christians , Jews, and Muslims to be the biggest sinners, because that's what my scriptures would tell me -- you guys are BAD! Also, Hindus burned widows in the name of God. Hinduism has actually convinced people that women will be in Heaven with their dead husbands if they were burned alongside their husbands' corpses. That's what is Good & Bad in Hinduism. And Polytheism and acknowledgment of other non-Hindu Gods is fine in Hinduism. HOMOSEXUALITY IS NOT A SIN IN HINDUISM. In fact, the Hindu scriptures, KAMASUTRAS, are full of Sex, including gay sex.

Bare with me here, I'm trying to make a point.

In Islam, polygamy is considered ok. Jihad (whatever that means) is considered good. Stoning to death is considered good. And of course, the death punishment for adultery is considered right. And finally, Muslims should only believe in Allah, not Yahweh, and not Jesus. Also, HOMOSEXUALITY is a Sin.

In Christianity, I know it is similar to the other two Abrahamic religions. Even in Christianity, I heard, death is the punishment for Adultery. Homosexuality is a Sin. I'm sure monogamy is the only accepted way of marriage.


All religions differ in their views on Good & Bad. When two religions meet, they clash.

I choose to use reasoning in finding out what is Good and what is Bad. I don't think Homosexuality is bad. I don't think anyone should be punished violently for committing adultery; adultery is a personal family issue.

It seems as if that Theists would have a big problem figuring out what Good or Bad is if they come in contact with other religious groups.
Wouldn't you agree?

What would a Burger eating Christian (no offense) and a Higher caste Hindu priest do if they are asked to live with each other for a week?

Would they like each other? What is the Real Good or Real Bad here? Vegetarianism or Non-vegetarianism?

What would a Muslim with 4 wives and who despises the eating of pork think of a southern Protestant who eats pork for breakfast?

What would a Buddhist who thinks it is sinful to harm animals think of a Jew who goes for deer hunting? Is shooting an animal Good? May be it is; may be not.

God, Good, Bad, Heaven, Hell, scriptures are found in every civilization that has evolved on this planet. They are all human creations.

Do you actually choose to lead your life without questioning what is Good or Bad. Do you actually want to let the Bible tell you what is Good and Bad?

Terrorists are brought up saying Jihad is the only way to HEAVEN. You and I would have thought that Jihad is good had we were brought up in Radical Islamic faith in the Terrorist camps.

The Protestant Ku Klux Klan thinks Jews, Catholics, Blacks, Browns like me shouldn't even exist. Their view of Good and Evil is different.

According to the Bible, anyone on this planet who doesn't accept Jesus Christ as his or her savior will have no place in heaven. That includes Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Taoists, Jews, and most importantly, INFIDELS (Atheists like me). According to Christianity, I'm going to hell because I'm an infidel. According Hinduism, everyone who has eaten a Big Mac is going to hell. According to Islam, everyone who doesn't believe in Allah is going to hell.

Why are you guys concerned with Hell & Sins? Do you actually believe in God so as to avoid ending up in Hell? What the Hell is Hell? What is Good and Bad?


Ravi Zacharias is once again WRONG in his conclusions of both theism & atheism.

Just the openning line of the back cover notes, "Atheism is a world without God. Its true nature-whether disguised in Eastern mysticism or American cynicism-is despair. In this thought-provoking and insightful book, Ravi Zacharias exposes the hopelessness of atheism" tell you all you need to know. If you are religious, there is no need for this book. it will NEVER help you convert an atheist or practitioner of "Eastern Mysticism." I am an atheist, I am not in despair. To the contrary, not believing the myth of an afterlife allows me to live life in the moment and make the most of my time on Earth. For those of you who question whether I worry about what happens after death, I ask Why should I worry? I won't be around. Me being dead and me existing can not happen simultaneously.

Ravi Zacharias misrepresents atheists to fit his own religious dogmas.
I found the book tasteless in the extreme.

As an atheist interested in Christianity I came to the book with an open mind. Then I reached page 53 where Zacharias quotes Nietzsche or should I say out right misquotes him. I can now see that Mr. Zacharias will say anything, lie and distort what people say to make his case. As a result I will probable not end up finishing the rest of the book or any other book Ravi Zacharias writes. If I am going to give Christianity a chance I am not going to trust in a intellectually dishonest person such as Zacharias. On page 53 Zacharias misquotes from page 515 of the Portable Nietzsche (from Twilight of the Idols.) Here is the quote he gives.


"When one gives up the Christian faith, one pulls the right to Christian morality out from under one's feet. This morality is by no means self-evident. Christianity is a system, a whole view of things thought out together. By breaking one main concept out of it, the faith in God, one breaks the whole. It stands or falls with faith in God"


Here is what Nietzsche really said

"When one gives up the Christian faith, one pulls the right to Christian morality out from under one's fee. This morality is by no means self-evident: this point has to be exhibited again and again, despite the English flatheads. Christianity is a system, a whole view of things though out together. By breaking one main concept out of it, the faith in God, one breaks the whole: nothing necessary remains in one's hands. Christianity presupposes that mans does not know, cannot know, what is good for him, what evil: he believes in God, who alone knows it. Christian morality is a command; its origin is transcendent; it is beyond all criticism, all right to criticism; it has truth only if God is the truth--it stands and falls with faith in God.

As you can see Zacharias has grossly distorted the truth of what Nietzsche was trying to communicate. Shame on you Mr Zacharias! I am one atheist that you have made more staunch in my atheism. If Christianity makes one more moral you have shown that to be a lie. All I ask of you is to be intellectually honest with me and you can't even do that, let alone convince me that Christianity is more then a bunch of fairy tales.

As Zacharias indicates in the preface to the book, The Real Face of Atheism touches on -- but doesn't go too deep into -- the various philosophical underpinnings for these opposing worldviews. It is a well written, easy to read and understand, informative and even enjoyable book. Zacharias does a pretty good job of highlighted the weaknesses of atheism from various angles.

In spots, he seems to gloss over some of their arguments, in something of a dismissive fashion. But part of that appears to be because the book was not intended to delve deep into any one particular argument or topic. Think of The Real Face of Atheism as a primer or introductory work.

If you're looking for answers to some of man's deepest questions, it's a good starting point. Zacharias cites scores of sources, so if you want further study, just look in his notes/bibliography. He makes abundantly clear those minds whose work he most admires (e.g. Muggeridge, C. S. Lewis) and those with whom he most strongly disagrees (e.g. Nietzsche, Russell.) He leaves it to the reader to make up his or her mind.

As Zacharias indicates in the preface to the book, The Real Face of Atheism touches on -- but doesn't go too deep into -- the various philosophical underpinnings for these opposing worldviews. It is a well written, easy to read and understand, informative and even enjoyable book. Zacharias does a pretty good job of highlighted the weaknesses of atheism from various angles.

In spots, he seems to gloss over some of their arguments, in something of a dismissive fashion. But part of that appears to be because the book was not intended to delve deep into any one particular argument or topic. Think of The Real Face of Atheism as a primer or introductory work.

If you're looking for answers to some of man's deepest questions, it's a good starting point. Zacharias cites scores of sources, so if you want further study, just look in his notes/bibliography. He makes abundantly clear those minds whose work he most admires (e.g. Muggeridge, C. S. Lewis) and those with whom he most strongly disagrees (e.g. Nietzsche, Russell.) He leaves it to the reader to make up his or her mind.

Many critics have attacked the work of Ravi Zacharias found here. This book "The Real Face of Atheism" is actually a slightly updated version of his 1990 book titled "A Shattered Visage: The Real Face of Atheism".

I do not consider this to be Ravi's crowning work but he did not write it to be an "exhaustive" argument against Atheism.

In his original introduction he explains his intention for this book---

It was born from a presentation to a group of scientists from Bell Labs. He addressed the topic of "Why I am not an Atheist" as a response to Bertrand Russel's "Why I am not a Christian".

Zacharias goes on to say that the questions that followed were not technical or scientific but rather were "heart-searching questions of men and women in pursuit of meaning in life." He wrote from a perspective dealing with his lecture and the questions of life that followed.

Many reviewers have said that Ravi has not argued effectively against Atheism and for Theism.

He gives a reason for that for those who care to read it---- "Others, who love the process of dialogue, might wish that the arguments were weightier than they are. My hope is that they will not fall into the trap of intellectualism and forget the splendor and power of simplicity. We are neither just brains floating around or hearts bouncing about."

Ravi Zacharias tends to dwell in the realm of bringing the highly philosophical down to the level of the more common reader. This is not always easy. A few here have pointed out that Ravi is not an effective debater. If you will listen to any of his question and answer sessions from various colleges and universities around the world and his lectures from the Harvard Veritas sessions you might think differently. His answers correlate well with his intended audience.

Other works such as "Can Man Live With God" address this topic as well.

I found this book to be rather helpful. I appreciate the author's flow of thought in making his case from the point of origins, morality, meaning, and destiny. That line of thought flowed nicely. Of course this book isn't exhaustive, but it was a great introduction to the philosophical problems of atheism, its contradictions, and its uphill struggle for real unifying meaing as a worldview. For me it made me hungry to read the footnoted authors and develop a greater understanding of both sides of the fence.

I appreciate the author for this book. Job well done.

I always enjoy author/preacher/speaker Ravi Zacharias on the radio, but I don't hear him broadcast on a regular basis, so I thought I would look into a few of his books, lately. I was going to give this one a 4 star rating, but since other (non-)readers have unfairly trashed his rating with a 1 star rating (and hateful comments which say nothing specific about this particular book), I will give this book the benefit of the doubt, with a 5 star rating (which it does deserve in spirit, if not delivery), but I do have constructive criticism about this book.

"Nothing, absolutely nothing, has a more direct bearing on the moral choices made by individuals or the purposes pursued by society than belief or disbelief in God." (page 21).

In this book, THE REAL FACE OF ATHEISM, Ravi teaches us many things about the intellectual history, concepts, and people who have championed the cause of the devil: Atheism! I always feel better about intellectually (not emotionally) debating the pros and cons of faith versus atheism after being exposed to Ravi's thoughts, and this book is no exception. It is a good book, but not a great book.

This book gives a great overview of the famous people and major points made in the name of Atheism, as well as the individual and cultural ramifications of Atheism versus Faith, and Faith being defined exclusively, (and correctly) as JESUS CHRIST! Amen, that, Brother Ravi!

Without a belief in God, then life becomes meaningless and people become more and more corrupt and without conscience! The lack of a higher authority, God, makes people think they are their own highest authority on the planet, which has historically, and individually, been disasterous, self-destructive, and downright suicidal. Ravi explains why.

I thought THE REAL FACE OF ATHEISM's overall flow of logic was a little unclear, on occasion, from chapter to chapter, though the points made on any given page are always pretty interesting.

After I read the two appendixes, I suddenly understood this book's overall construction better. I think these two appendixes would better serve the reader if they were in the front of the book. They work better as brief introductions to his overall thought process, and then the reader can better see were his points fit into his case, because we would have had the overall plan explained. In fact, in the Introduction, Ravi does mention to the reader to check out his two brief appendixes, but I think he should go ahead and just put them in front of the book, in my opinion. It would have helped me out.

I have read Ravi's 2006 autobiography book, in which he mentions that this book, THE REAL FACE OF ATHEISM, and his other book, DELIVER US FROM EVIL, are his most popular books ever. I MUCH prefer DELIVER US FROM EVIL over this one. Ravi's best book is DELIVER US FROM EVIL. It is bettered organized than THE REAL FACE OF ATHEISM, and it flows together to make a much better, more contained and defined point of view.

I have also read and enjoyed Ravi's 2006 autobiography book, EAST TO WEST: GOD IN THE SHADOWS, and found it more memorable and entertaining than THE REAL FACE OF ATHEISM, but THE REAL FACE OF ATHEISM has more important ammunition for defending the faith in a culture overrun by atheistic values run amok. THE REAL FACE OF ATHEISM is more important to read, while EAST TO WEST: GOD IN THE SHADOWS is more casual and friendly.

I have also read his short, gift book, THE LAMB AND THE FUHRER, which I cannot recommend, sorry to say. That book is fiction, an imaginary conversation between Jesus and Hitler, which is an interesting concept, but Ravi's fiction writing is the weakest project that I have ever come across from Ravi Zacharias, so far.

I enjoy the weekly radio shows of Ravi Zacharias, where he explains Christian concepts from an in-depth, intellectually reasoned point of view. It always helps me become better equipped to defend the faith and to gently explain Christian concepts to non-believers. Actually, I think his radio ministry work is more consistent and more powerful than any of his books which I have read, so far. Radio is where Ravi excels, more than in books, but his books can be very good, as well.

I have read 4 of Ravi's books now, and the primary argument of each one is that an atheist has no basis upon which to judge good or bad.

I am no expert on the subject, but my analysis is that Plato adequately debunks this notion. All of the dialogues deal with an abstract quality that humans can intuitively disguinsh. For instance if two people are running, one can intuitively know that one person runs faster or better than the other person.

This is the Greek notion of 'arete' or excellence. 'Good' to an ancient Greek was a person who possessed more of these abstract qualities from strength, speed, endurance, skill in a craft, compassion, humor and so on. A person can make moralistic evaluations based on what leads to more arete, each one being knowable to man through observation and reason.

A circumspect person realizes that being excellent at making money is counterbalanced by being excellent at showing compassion and thus any argument that atheism has no basis for rejecting selfish or destructive behavior seems deeply flawed to me.

An atheist that uses relativism to justify instantaneous gratification is as off base as a Christian who used the Bible to justify something like the Inquisition.

Ravi can see this distinction in the Christian but fails to see this distinction in the atheist.

I give Ravi's books 3 stars for his ability to make you think, but he continues to misunderstand the ancient Greeks. Other reviewers have noted that Ravi tends to tear down opposing arguments without making much of a positive argument for theism. Couple this with his incomplete view of the opposing argument, which is understandable for an apologist, and Ravi's conclusion doesn't have much left to stand on.

I would offer Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance by Robert Pirsig as an entertaining overview on the ancient Greek notion of quality as an alternative point of view.

Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil gives examples of how Christianity inverts the value system of the ancient Greeks in a few places and I think some of the tensions within Christianity today are the result of these inversions. For instance, is it OK to be strong, rich and successful if it is the meek, poor and persecuted that are the blessed ones in the sermon on the mount?

"One who doesn not believe in himself believes in God"

The burden of proof for God's existence falls on those who believe the unsubstantiated claim - this book answers nothing.