Rating: 
Summary: Be patient . . . Dr. Z gets better!
Review: Being Dr. Zacharias's first book, it is not his best. He hadn't refined his ideas and smoother out his patter and phraseology. But his ideas are there, and you cannot ignore a good argument. It is more of a hint of things to come, or a nest full of idea-eggs from which eagles are soon to hatch, fly and command the skies.He focuses on Nietzsche, the real man of the 20th Century, since more people are overt or crypto-Nietzscheans than overt or crypto-Einsteinians. If you read his works, such as "Anti-Christ," "Twilight of the Gods," or "Thus Spoke Zarathustra" you get a feel for the half-truths that Nietzsche espouses. He discusses revaluing or transvaluing values, but what does that really mean? Killing is OK? Peace is wrong? But doesn't this topsy-turveyness describe the world we are in? And vitriolic? Dr. Zacharias is one of the meekest and gentlest humans around. I have been cussed-out several times, and in several languages, and this book does not even enter the suburbs of anger and acid. I think Dr. Zacharias's strength is his gentleness and soft touch in teaching theology. Yes, this book is not Dr. Zacharias's strongest, but it is his first, and you get a feel for his arguments and reasons. Be patient-he gets better!
Rating: 
Summary: Not for People Afraid To Think
Review: I am amazed at the bizarre reviews of this book. Although it is the first book of Dr. Zacharias that I have read, I have heard him on many occasions and marvel at his ability to make people think. Of course, that seems to offend some people who prefer to live in their predisposed mindsets, I guess. Thus you get the kind of reviews like you see here. This book is simple. It takes ideas and foundations that have been used to bankrupt our current society of its meaning and value and explains them like most people can and will not do. Niecthze is like Love Story was in the 1970's - far from the romance so often associated with it/him. I think that Ravi did a great job with the amount of space he had to work with. After all, this was not a book on Nietchze(did I spell his name right?), but a book on the different aspects associated with atheism. If you like to think and are a person who feeds on knowledge and intelligent thinking, this book is a great motivator. It can jolt you from your redundant life and give some exercise to that gray matter up there..... If you are an old spring-loaded atheistic fossil stuck in your ways of thinking just waiting for an opportunity to get angry at someone who disagrees with your view, this can even bring a little action to your stony limbs.....(grin). May not change your life, but at least you would get a little circulation going.....
Rating:
Summary: Not for People Afraid To Think
Review: I am amazed at the bizarre reviews of this book. Although it is the first book of Dr. Zacharias that I have read, I have heard him on many occasions and marvel at his ability to make people think. Of course, that seems to offend some people who prefer to live in their predisposed mindsets, I guess. Thus you get the kind of reviews like you see here. This book is simple. It takes ideas and foundations that have been used to bankrupt our current society of its meaning and value and explains them like most people can and will not do. Niecthze is like Love Story was in the 1970's - far from the romance so often associated with it/him. I think that Ravi did a great job with the amount of space he had to work with. After all, this was not a book on Nietchze(did I spell his name right?), but a book on the different aspects associated with atheism. If you like to think and are a person who feeds on knowledge and intelligent thinking, this book is a great motivator. It can jolt you from your redundant life and give some exercise to that gray matter up there..... If you are an old spring-loaded atheistic fossil stuck in your ways of thinking just waiting for an opportunity to get angry at someone who disagrees with your view, this can even bring a little action to your stony limbs.....(grin). May not change your life, but at least you would get a little circulation going.....
Rating:
Summary: Must read!
Review: I'm reading some of these reviews, and it seems that atheists are desperate in keeping people from reading this book. Why? Because atheism is a disastrous philosophy! You have to read this book to know the real ugly face of atheism.
Rating: 
Summary: Another religious person hates atheists, news at 11
Review: It is all too easy to imagine that Zacharias has never had a single conversation with a bona fide atheist (that he was aware of), nor read anything on the topic beyond the writings of Nietzsche. His misconceptions and distortions are so pervasive that I am at a loss to explain it in any other way. I will give Zacharias the benefit of the doubt and assume that he is merely ignorant or misinformed about atheism and neither malicious nor self-serving. However, Zacharias cannot escape culpability for his complete lack of scholarship; there really is little excuse for this given that he is persecuting a vast group of individuals who share nothing but one simple trait; disbelief in god(s).
This last point deserves emphasis. Atheists are an extraordinarily diverse group in every way save one; disbelief. Some atheists are highly moral, others are not. Some atheists devote their lives to bettering society, others do not. Some atheists prize truth and honesty above all else, others do not. The same can be said for theists, and by all accounts in approximately the same measure. (Although, if pressed, I must admit that from my own limited experience I have found atheists on the whole to have a greater propensity for honesty and compassion than do religionists. Of course, this does not entitle me to make sweeping generalizations any more than Zacharias is justified in making sweeping claims to the contrary.)
Regarding Zacharias's lack of scholarship, I will merely point out his most basic and egregious gaff; Zacharias's very definition of an atheist is incorrect. An "atheist" is a person "without theism" -- i.e. lacking a belief in god, nothing more. Zacharias's straw man atheist insists that there is no god, a hardened and dogmatic assertion that I have yet to meet an adherent of. This is a common misconception among theists that is fueled by the fact that it is easier to persecute a dogmatist than an open-minded and rational individual who has considered evidence on both sides. Granted, not all atheists are open-minded (nor are all theists), but Zacharias's characterization of an atheist deftly avoids the large class of people who have sincerely considered the theistic world view and found little if anything to distinguish it from superstition; hence, they reject it.
No one is the better for propagating such baseless misunderstandings about atheism. Would it not be in everyone's interest to face the facts honestly? Atheists are not immoral, evil, selfish, ignorant, lazy, or possessed; they are simply people, as are theists. As such, it would seem to be a moral responsibility to present a fair characterization of atheism, even if it does not serve the immediate purposes of theism. This would also be the courageous thing to do, as it would force one to confront the real issues, not straw men. (Need I point out that it would also be the truthful thing to do?)
There have been a great many truly gifted and compassionate atheists: Thomas Paine (actually a deist), Mark Twain, Gore Vidal, Carl Sagan, Isaac Asimov, Steve Allen, Albert Einstein, Linus Pauling, Richard Feinmann, and countless others. It's truly absurd to paint this entire group with the gloom that Zacharias imagines. I can only hope that Zacharias will one day make an attempt to engage in open dialog about atheism, and that he might make a sincere attempt to understand a different point of view.
I will close with this observation. I find that the measure of an author is not in the vigor with which he/she espouses a point of view, but in the fairness they accord opposing views. Those who assimilate all points of view well enough to portray them with respectful accuracy are usually capable of contributing something of substance. Conversely, those who construct an absurd "shattered visage" of an opposing view rarely deliver anything of value. Unfortunately, Zacharias has placed himself squarely in the latter category.
Rating:
Summary: Zacharias deserves an honest review from at least 1 atheist
Review: No group engages in more name calling than the atheistic reviewers of Christian Books. I've read "A Shattered Visage" many times and its value is that it explains so well exactly why 'the heathen rages'.
Amazon reviewer, James Arvo is spitting into the wind when he attempts to label this book uninformed and hateful. Nowhere in his review does Arvo backup his complaint. There is not a hateful word in this book-unless disagreeing with someone else's position and making a strong case for one's own can be defined as such. So instead of the name calling, why not attempt to answer the question so profoundly raised in "A Shattered Visage." Is man the measure of all things? Zacharias poses the question then walks you through his answer in a concise and entertaining manner. In "A Shattered Visage" the reader will learn that the writings of Nietzsche and Darwin had a profound effect on Hitler. That the sneering and name calling Mr. Arvo practices has been passed down to him from his philosophical grandfathers, Nietzsche, Bertrand Russell and Marx. And if you doubt the existence of God, you'll get a well-reasoned argument for the theistic side. Zacharias is a kind man and a gentle persuader. This book is enjoyable and though it assaults the major players of atheistic thought and the havoc they have created, it in no way offers any unkindness toward non-believers in God.
Rating:
Summary: Another religious person hates atheists, news at 11
Review: Religious people, who claim to be so loving and caring, certainly spend a great deal of time expressing their hatred of atheists. Why bother to read this book ? If you already hate atheists, then the author is merely "preaching to the choir". If you don't hate atheists, this book will not enlighten you because it's full of misinformation. Save your $$, and buy something worthwhile like a great novel or a science book.
Rating:
Summary: "A shattered visage lies"
Review: This book is a polemic arguing that atheists are not only without morality but actually prone to murderous authoritarianism. Since atheists seem basically reasonable, mild-mannered citizens (even me!), this is a surprising and interesting claim. But is Zacharias right about the Atheist Menace, or merely a bigot?
Reading _Shattered Visage_, it soon emerges that Zacharias' logic is nearly as confused as Madonna's hair. Further, he is extraordinarily careless with facts and texts, and clearly has either not read, or failed to understand, many texts he cites. Examples? First, a mild protest on Zacharias' misuse of Shelley's poem, _Ozymandias_, from which he takes his "shattered visage" title. Ozymandias is an arrogant boaster, something Zacharias wants to make emblematic of atheism. He should read more carefully. Shelley's Ozymandias is the Pharoah Rameses II, no atheist but a religious figure, priest and god of his country's religion. In Ozymandias' famous boast, "My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings! Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!" it's no accident that Shelley includes the words "King of Kings", with its echo of the Christian YHWH. Shelley set his fable in far-off lands and places for ironical purposes and to avoid giving offence, but he was, among some other things, attacking the arrogance of the religious zealots who were Shelley's contemporaries, as Zacharias is ours. Zacharias uses Hawking's famous "know the mind of God" phrase to claim that current physics leads to religion. Had he read more than _Brief History of Time_'s last line, Zacharias would have found a book that undermines theism with a non-theist account of the Big Bang. Hawking, like Shelley, is an atheist, and was reducing the idea of god to metaphor. Zacharias cites without reading. Zacharias' centrepiece, his use of Marx and Nietzsche, combines factual errors and illogic. The illogic is in his assumption that atheism means more than absence of belief in any of humanity's thousands of gods. Instead he thinks of atheism as a club whose members not only agree with each other about theism, but also on things having nothing to do with theism. Thus he thinks that if Marx was an atheist, then other atheists must share Marx's other views. In reality Marx's influential ideas, concerning politics and economics, are irrelevant to his atheism, as demonstrated by the many Christians, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists etc who are or have been Marxists, and by the majority of atheists who are not Marxists. Nietzsche is more complex, and the focus of many of Zacharias' factual problems. Though no Christian, Nietzsche was an irrationalist, despising atheism and drawn to non-Christian religions, if more for their style than for their "truth". Nietzsche's religious views can't be summed up in one word as atheist: "pagan" might be closer. "God is dead", for example, is not something an atheist could logically say. Atheists don't believe there are gods who were once alive. But Nietzsche is too complicated and too self-contradictory to be summed up in one word, or used in this simplistic way. So Zacharius merely looks odd, using Marx and especially Nietzsche as sticks with which to beat atheists. It's a bit like attacking London by shelling Antarctica. Further, Nietzsche was anti-feminist, anti-democratic, pro-war and contemptuous of the political left. (He may be closer to Zacharias than to this atheist.) I dislike Nietzsche, except as writer, as deeply as Nietzsche despised compassion. Therefore no partisanship but concern for truth makes me observe that Zacharias' claim that Nietzsche contributed materially to the rise of Nazism is absolute nonsense. Nor is Zacharias reliable on Hitler. Hitler's public and private statements reveal a theist, not an atheist. Further, Hitler's antisemitism, authoritarianism and belief in political violence are substantially derived from Karl Luegar's rightwing extremist Christian Socialist Party, as Hitler acknowledges in _Mein Kampf_. This isn't the place to explore the Christian churches' ignoble (with exceptions) performance in Nazi Germany. Nor should atheists return Zacharias' compliment by claiming that rightwing Christians are particularly prone to Nazism. But we can observe that smearing atheists with a Nazi tag is dishonest and nasty. Zacharias' key error is to connect theism and morality. If the First Cause argument were correct rather than a self-contradiction, and one or more gods were necessary to account for the Big Bang, the sole logical consequence would be that physics has a supernatural element. That wouldn't mean that the god or gods in question are those described in the Bhagavad Gita, Iliad, Bible, Koran, or whatever. Nor would any moral consequences flow from the existence of one or more gods. Unless you believe that extremely powerful beings must by definition be virtuous: that is, you secretly think that might is right. Nor have theist texts proved much of a guide to decent behaviour. Most Christians would surely agree that many different moral systems derive from Bible readings, and some have been vicious: the slaughters of Albigensians, Arians and millions of other dissidents, the Crusades, the Inquisition (the model for the Gestapo and KGB), witch-burnings and so on. Today we can see the wonderful things religion is achieving in the Mid-East, in India/Pakistan, Ireland, Serbia and now Afghanistan. And the World Trade Centre fanatics murdered in the name of "God", not of (for example) Bertrand Russell. In reality atheists are mostly virtuous people for the same reasons most religious believers are virtuous people. We know we can only have safety, company and be liked by others if we behave with reasonable kindness and justice, and we aren't a danger to others. We were brought up that way because cultures that don't bring up their children that way don't survive. And we are gregarious primates with a nice side as well as some darker desires; mostly we don't _want_ to be too nasty to others. People who link morality to shonky arguments about supernatural beings aren't strengthening morality, but the opposite. Zacharias wants to insult the morality of atheists, but instead insults the intelligence of his readers. Cheers! Laon
Rating:
Summary: Has this guy ever even seen an atheist?
Review: This book makes a lot of bold claims and does nothing to back them up. It is apparent that Zacharias not only knows nothing about atheism in general, but also knows nothing about logic or philosophy as well. For more information, see an article refuting this book.
Rating:
Summary: Has this guy ever even seen an atheist?
Review: This book makes a lot of bold claims and does nothing to back them up. It is apparent that Zacharias not only knows nothing about atheism in general, but also knows nothing about logic or philosophy as well. For more information, see an article refuting this book.
| 
