http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/1055453403

Horrible. Preaching to the choir. Only those who already agree and want to will not realize how bad the arguments are.

Too many people have probably read this book without first reading Harris (or at least, not reading him very carefully and with an open mind). I am not looking to defend atheism so much as I am trying to show some examples of precisely where Zacharias gets it wrong, so you can see how he is mistreating Harris' work. It would be better to get a different book against the atheists if that's what you are so inclined to do. This one is simply no good.

In it, he notes Harris's arguments about the wrongness of Hitler's actions, and asserts that Harris does not put forth a criterion with which to judge moral actions. He writes, "For Harris to convince us that Hitler was wrong to do what he did, he has to borrow from an objective moral framework to support his point," (Zacharias 52). Ravi Zacharias is claiming that without God, there can be no objective morality. He is also claiming that Sam Harris has simply made up his own morality, "as if morality should be self-evident to everybody, regardless of whether God exists or not," (54). He thinks that Harris "cannot explain his innate sense of right and wrong - the reality of God's law written on his heart - because there is no logical explanation for how that intuition toward morality could develop from sheer matter and chemistry" (54-5). Nowhere does Ravi Zacharias see Sam Harris state what he thinks is moral, and thus he thinks that Harris has "concocted" his moral view "in his own mind" (54).

Interestingly, though, Sam Harris directly addresses this point in Letter to a Christian Nation. Early on in the book, he writes,

Questions of morality are questions about happiness and suffering. This is why you and I do no have moral obligations toward rocks. To the degree that our actions can affect the experience of other creatures positively or negatively, questions of morality apply," (Letter .

So, if Ravi Zacharias is trying to argue (and he is) that Harris never explains what he thinks is moral, then he must have missed this part early in the book. But in The End of Reason, Zacharias sets up this argument:
Premise one: "Objective moral values exist only if God exists."
Premise two: "Objective moral values do exist."
Conclusion: "Therefore God exists" (Zacharias 56).

The issue with the argument for an atheist such as Harris is in premise one, which Zacharias argues for on the prior page:
Premise one: "When you assert that there is such a thing as evil, you must assume there is such as thing as good."
Premise two: "When you say there is such a thing as good, you must assume there is a moral law by which to distinguish between good and evil. There must be some standard by which to determine what is good and what is evil."
Premise three: "When you assume a moral law, you must posit a moral lawgiver - the source of the moral law" (55).

The issue with this argument lies in premise three, as we will see. But it is important to note that Zacharias thinks that "this moral lawgiver is precisely who atheists are trying to disprove" (55). He means the God of the Bible. The reason I bring Zacharias so heavily into this argument is because I believe that his views on morality are common among Christians with a literal interpretation of the Bible (it seems that atheists like Harris often must defend against such attacks). It is important to discuss what Zacharias claims because it is a real and prevalent mindset that must be philosophically combated.

It would be difficult to miss Harris's explanation of what he thinks is moral, as I stated above. It seems even more difficult to miss a later section in Letter to a Christian Nation, entitled "Real Morality," in which Sam Harris blatantly counters the rest of the position Zacharias posits about objective morality not being possible without a God (he seems to think that this has not been addressed by Harris in the book). Harris writes to Christians,

"You believe that unless the Bible is accepted as the word of God, there can be no universal standard of morality. But we can easily think of objective sources of moral order that do not require the existence of a lawgiving God. For there to be objective moral truths worth knowing, there need only be better and worse ways to seek happiness in this world. If there are psychological laws that govern human well-being, knowledge of these laws would provide an enduring basis for an objective morality" (Letter 23-4).

It is clear that Zacharias missed this as well, since he writes in his book, "Sam Harris may protest, `Why is a moral lawgiver necessary in order to recognize good and evil?'" (Zacharias 55). He is right that Harris would protest that, but he did not seem to know that he already does. In fact, Zacharias starts off this section by addressing Harris's arguments about God allowing rape, torture, and natural disasters, asking,

"Is he saying that such things are evil, ought to be evil, or ought not to be allowed by a loving God? In any of the three assertions he is at best saying, 'I do not see a moral order at work here.' But if there is no God, who as the authority to say where there is a moral order in operation? Sam Harris? Adolf Hitler? Who?" (50).

Again, Zacharias brings up Hitler. The other time, he claimed that Harris could not say Hitler did anything immoral without an objective moral system, which he believes Harris does not have (he does). This time, he is bringing up Hitler in an attempt to show the dangers of relative thinking like Harris's (it's not). He also continually echoes the claim throughout this section of his book that Sam Harris does not see moral order in the world. Harris goes on in Letter to a Christian Nation,

"While we do not have anything like a final, scientific understanding of human morality, it seems safe to say that raping and killing our neighbors is not one of its primary constituents. Everything about human experience suggests that love is more conducive to happiness than hate is. This is an objective claim about the human mind, about the dynamics of social relations, and about the moral order of our world. It is clearly possible to say that someone like Hitler was wrong in moral terms without reference to scripture" (Letter 24).

Harris has made it clear that he does see moral order in the world. He also has made it clear why he can criticize Hitler objectively. Now that Ravi Zacharias's mistakes, misinterpretations, and oversights have been plainly noted, I hope you don't bother with this book. It is simply not a good set of arguments, and it seems as if he did not read Harris closely at all. Whether or not you agree with Harris, this isn't even a decent book against him, and I think even Christians would prefer to find a book that actually is worth the read against atheism. Granted I have yet to find one that is, this is certainly not one of them.

Before anyone wastes their time reading this, in addition to the poster above I found more reviews of the book from purchasers on the Amazon page. This first reviewer (in addition to the one jayriginal posted) read both the original book Letter to a Christian Nation by Sam Harris, and this book, which is an attempted clapback to that one. It includes direct quotes.

Emotional Arguments, Unsubstantiated Claims, and bad science
The forward is by Lee Strobel, author, who writes:
Together with a wave of other books promoting militant atheism, authored by Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Christopher Hitchens and others, these books by Harris have confused spiritual seekers and even rocked the faith of some Christians.
* How are these authors in any way militant? As a result of their writings has anyone been tortured, killed or imprisoned?

Ravi Zacharias' (RZ's) letter opens with an imaginary story of a mother committing suicide because her son recognizes that Christianity is factually false. RZ uses the subject of suicide repeatedly to evoke strong emotions.

Elsewhere within RZ's letter, here are some excerpts (in quotes) I found significant:

"I have always found it fascinating how relativists who say they love the idea of tolerance ultimately reveal themselves to be among the most bigoted."
* 1) an unsubstantiated claim and, 2) not at all accurate in reference to the atheist authors he previously mentioned. Scientists he targets discuss at length moral behavior arising from evolutionary psychology which has shown moral and ethical behavior to be largely fixed rather than relative and is, in fact, highly predictable.

"Academic degree after degree has not removed the haunting specter of the pointlessness of existence in a random universe."
* Much of the universe isn't at all random and much of it we still don't fully understand but invention of a deity won't accomplish anything except console ourselves that a spirit inhabits our gaps in knowledge (Gap Worship). Also, how does RZ know highly trained atheist scientists live pointless lives?

"His America would ban our belief, leaving room only for the sovereignty of his materialistic or matter-driven vision of all human existence."
* This is just inflammatory and dishonest. Harris never advocates banning Christian belief.

"As I read Sam Harris's books, The End of Faith and Letter to a Christian Nation, I felt as though I was being dragged through a vortex of emotion--from incredulity to outrage to a deep sadness."
* Much of RZ's objections are laced with his emotions that lend nothing to the argument.

"Is it possible, however, that Harris's disrespect is justified because in an atheistic world, love for one's fellow human beings is a foreign concept?"
* Presumptive and emotional

"Contrary to what atheists imply, the dead weight of their beliefs leads to a heartless, pointless, and hollow existence."
* Another unsubstantiated assumption that lends no explanation as to why belief in a deity makes existence more meaningful and why the lack of a deity is a dead weight.

"Atheism Led to My Suicide Attempt"
* RZ must assume that many atheists will attempt suicide because he did.

"Now, after reading the likes of Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and Daniel Dennett in their anti-theistic outbursts, I have concluded that there are big bucks in the atheist racket as well."
* Not even comparable! A handful of atheist authors will make only a tiny fraction of that generated by the Protestant/Catholic religious industry. Most of Dawkins' work is in the field of biology with atheism advocacy as a sideline. Sam Harris is a neuroscientist.

"Big Bang cosmology, along with Einstein's theory of general relativity, implies that there is indeed an "in the beginning.""
* Very simplistic and dated. In the century since Einstein published his theories, physics theory has changed radically. Humans can't easily conceive of existence without a beginning because we lead time-linear, 3-dimensional lives.

"As we know it now, all order did not evolve. Nothing in science supports this contention. Something had to exist as an explanation in itself. Nothing does not produce something--and never has."
* RZ here is way outside his field of expertise which is, after all, divinity. He has a master's degree in divinity. Science shows conclusively that in many cases order evolves out of chaos. Every snowflake self-assembles in beautiful 6-point symmetry out of a chaotic mess of water vapor.

"One would have to conclude that the chance of the random ordering of organic molecules is not essentially different from a big fat zero. Perhaps that's why they call it a singularity, because it is without definition or empirical explanation."
* No, it's a singularity because it proceeds to infinity.

"If life is random, then the inescapable consequence, first and foremost, is that there can be no ultimate meaning and purpose to existence."
* Harris never said that life is random and in fact, in his book "The Moral Landscape", makes a case for limited choice.

"Not only does atheism's worldview lead to the death of meaning; it also leads to the death of moral reasoning."
* Science is all about finding meaning. Moral reasoning is well studied and even predictable.

"Has Harris read about Hitler's own spiritual journey?"
* Hitler was an opportunist who sometimes cited elements of his Christian faith as reason to exterminate Jews.

"What would he say if two hundred years from now someone says that genocide against Christians can be traced back to the anti-Christian writings of Sam Harris?"
* An incendiary statement used to evoke emotion. What about the millions of those stabbed, burned, broken on the wheel, crushed, lashed, hanged, flayed, starved and drowned by Christians through the ages. It's still happening among Christians in Africa.

"there is no logical explanation for how that intuition toward morality could develop from sheer matter and chemistry."
* Correct. It also involved evolution of Homo sapiens.

"Let me put it in philosophical terms:
- Objective moral values exist only if God exists.
- Objective moral values do exist [a point Harris concedes in his letter].
- Therefore God exists."
* This is the old apologetic "argument from morality" for the existence of God. Several scientific fields are currently studying the origins of human and other animal morality and ethics. In fact in Sam Harris' own book, "The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values", his goal is to show how moral truth can be backed by "science", or more specifically, empirical knowledge, critical thinking, philosophy, but most controversially, the scientific method.

"Therefore, we must agree with the conclusion that nothing can be intrinsically prescriptively good unless there also exists a God who has fashioned the universe thus."
* This is the old apologetic "argument from degree". About it, Richard Dawkins said, 'That's an argument? You might as well say, people vary in smelliness but we can make the comparison only by reference to a perfect maximum of conceivable smelliness. Therefore there must exist a pre-eminently peerless stinker, and we call him God. Or substitute any dimension of comparison you like, and derive an equally fatuous conclusion.'

"So on his own terms as an atheist, Sam Harris is either engaging in moral reasoning that is only valid if God exists, or he is being irrational in his assertions."
* The old "Moral law requires a Lawgiver" argument.

"Even Richard Dawkins, Harris's hero, admits that science has no methods or authority for deciding what is ethical."
* Not true. In fact, Dawkins dedicates a chapter to it in "The God Delusion".

"Only in Christianity is the privilege given both to believe and to disbelieve without any enforcement."
* Not true. Eternal agony in a fiery hell is the penalty for disbelief and thus belief is rigidly enforced.

"Has he not seen the violence that takes place during trade union strikes in Europe? There were atheists present, you know. Has he not heard of the riots in the Watts neighborhood of Los Angeles and in other places? There were atheists present, you know."
* RZ thinks European trade union strikes and the LA riots were atheist riots.

"When I was at Oxford recently, I was told about an article written by Richard Dawkins in which he advocated that any prospective student with a creationist point of view should be refused admittance into Oxford."
* No citation given but even if it's true, so what? Dawkins is an emeritus fellow of New College, Oxford and thus has the obligation to express an opinion about whether or not a prospective student should be admitted if he advocates fantasy rather than scientific theory.

"The difference between someone who calls himself or herself a Christian and yet kills and slaughters and an atheist who does the same thing is that the Christian is acting in violation of his or her own belief, while the atheist's action is the legitimate outworking of his or her belief."
* The old "No True Scotsman" defense. He: "Ian is a Scotsman." She: "Does he eat haggis?" He: "No." She: "Well no true Scotsman would refuse haggis."

"Today it may be a failing business that is in need of God's intervention. Tomorrow I may want to be healed from cancer. The day after
that, I may even want a loved one to be brought back from the dead."
* So God ignores starving Christian children in Africa but saves his failing business? Also, I'd like to see the resurrection trick.

"Sam Harris betrays a rather amazing prejudice. How he has gotten away with making slanderous statements in his book --accusing Muslim communities of "misogyny, their anti-Semitism, . . . forced marriages, honor killings, punitive gang rapes, and a homicidal loathing of homosexuals"--boggles the mind (see Letter, 84).
* RZ criticizes Harris for this but then a few pages later in his own book writes:
- "Islam is a religion that is academically bankrupt, for it fails to meet the ordinary tests of truth. Those who critique it run the risk of being obliterated."
- "Islam is a religion of power; the Christian faith is one of communion and relationship with the One. Even now, Europe is demonstrating
that its secular worldview--one that Harris applauds --cannot stand against the onslaught of Islam and is already in demise. In the end, America's choice will be between Islam and Jesus Christ."

"Think of a world where there is no ultimate justice! Think of young Seung-Hui Cho, a student at Virginia Tech University, who slaughtered thirty-two students and professors and then shot himself. He has won in a world where there is no ultimate justice. Innocent people have been randomly shot, and their families have no recourse and no closure. Are you at peace with that?"
* The old "Pascal's wager" apology coupled with delight in the eternal burning misery of the mentally ill Seung-Hui Cho.

"The mass murderer at Virginia Tech University used a question mark in reference to his name. The logical outworking of the denial of God is to question the worth of every individual."
* RZ's psychological diagnosis is that Seung-Hui Cho murdered due to atheism. According to his pastor at Centreville Korean Presbyterian Church, Cho was a smart student who understood the Bible. On the other hand an actual psychologist diagnosed Cho with selective mutism.

"I have seen statistics declaring that as many as 40 percent of scientists do believe in God."
* Among members of the National Academy of Sciences, 7.0% expressed personal belief, while 72.2% expressed disbelief and another 20.8% were agnostic concerning the existence of a personal god who answers prayer. (Nature, Vol. 394, No. 6691, p. 313 (1998))

"The reason Jesus was silent on the issue of slavery is very simple. He was silent on many issues that the "law" could have addressed
without changing the heart, including the overthrow of Rome--the empire that had enslaved his own beloved Jerusalem and his people."
* This is a cop-out. History might have been much kinder had Jesus simply said, 'Don't have slaves.'

"On their own scientific terms, atheists should know that we do not change people's hearts by mocking them and castigating them."
* But...RZ did this to atheists throughout his letter.

"Science is lame when it comes to moral decisions; it limps as it walks, lacking an absolute moral law for life's purpose."
* Morality as outlined by modern science is far more orderly and kind than that of the Bible or Koran. Modern science doesn't advocate slavery, rape, genocide, infanticide, misogyny, or genital mutilation.

"I must go on to say some important things about Sam Harris's implicit assertion that only religious People have a strong bias against stem cell research and cloning."
* I searched Harris' letter and he didn't mention cloning.

"Einstein also cautioned that God "does not throw dice." Make no mistake about it, Sam Harris is throwing dice, and we are the pawns in
his kind of world."
* RZ took this completely out of context. Einstein was talking about quantum mechanics.

"It boils down to this: for the follower of Jesus Christ, the fact that the universe cannot explain itself, added to the obvious intelligence behind the universe, linked to the historical and experiential verification of what Jesus taught and did, make belief
in him a very rational and existentially fulfilling reality."
* 1) For those who take the time and effort, the universe explains itself very articulately through the language of mathematics. 2) There is no evidence of obvious intelligence behind the universe. 3) The historicity of Jesus is weak and all experiential evidence is based on ungrounded individual testimony.

Preaching to the Choir. No One Else Will Listen.
"First of all, his defense of the existence of God is nothing more than a "god of the gaps" philosophy, which is shaky at best. For instance, he cannot understand why atheists are silent on the fact that they cannot explain where matter came from. His slogan is "nothing cannot produce something." His conclusion is that for this reason there must be a God. The silence of atheists is supposed to show that since atheists have no good answer as to why there is something rather than nothing, the atheist must be wrong. This cannot be considered good reason, because perhaps it is possible that there will some day be an explanation as to why matter exists that will have purely natural explanations; to use the fact that science has not produced any explanations to this point as evidence for God's existence is to set oneself up for disappointment if those explanations do come forth in the future because that will mean that one no longer has that particular evidence to use. Good evidences of God's existence have to avoid rhetorical questions like, "if God doesn't exist, how do you explain this or that?"

The other thing the author does not even seem to consider is that matter simply exists, and has done so from eternity. In fact, I am sure that is what scientists will claim is the case if they are asked to give a naturalistic explanation of why there is something rather than nothing. I have never found that positing the existence of a supernatural deity explains the question of why there is matter, rather it simply puts the focus somewhere else. Just like one might ask why is there matter rather than no matter, one might ask why there is a God rather than no God. That question is not a bit easier to answer without retreating into agnosticism by saying "I don't know why God exists, he just does." That is exactly what the scientist would say about physical matter, which is why this evidence for God's existence just does not work. It does not solve anything, just diverts one's attention to something else.

The author is also guilty of making appeals to his personal experience and the readers emotions in order to make his case against Sam Harris. I cannot argue with Ravi Zacharias' personal experience, so when he claims that he attempted suicide as a result of his despair over the apparent lack of answers in a world without God I have no choice but to believe him. What his experience does not do is prove that every person in the world must live a life of despair as an atheist simply because Ravi Zacharias did. Basically, what he is asking the reader to do is to look at his despair as indicative of how all atheists really feel, and if an atheist ever claims to have no problems despairing, then that atheist must be lying. It is an absurd double standard. We are to categorically accept the experience of the author, but question anyone else's experience if it is different.

Zacharias also declares that despair and insanity is the "logical conclusion" of atheism, because Friedrich Nietzsche died insane, and apparently Michael Foucault once had some drug induced point of despair and he died of AIDS. This is an absolute scream of Tom Cruise proportions! It totally denigrates those Christians who have at some point had to unfortunate experience to either have a mental illness or die of AIDS. It is absurd to think that mental illness or AIDS is the "logical conclusion" of any worldview. Most atheists have never went insane or acquired AIDS, but we are supposed to ignore that fact and accept that atheism leads to these sorts of things. This is not good reasoning, it is a scare tactic that I am sure most theists would be sickened by.

My last criticism for the purposes of this review, is to point out that Zacharias often critiques what he considers "atheist beliefs" (63) or "atheistic philosophy" (72). This is ridiculous, because anyone who knows anything about atheism realizes that "atheism" is a term that simply denotes one's lack of belief in God. There is literally no such thing as an "atheist belief," because atheism is a lack of belief. The only thing two atheists might share in common is the lack of belief in God. They might have opposite views on everything else. The reason that the author does this is to build up a straw man to tear down. It lumps someone like Antony Flew in the same ranks as Joseph Stalin. If you can convince the reader that the atheist at the university really has the same worldview as Joseph Stalin, then it is easy to convince that person that the atheist is really a terrible, horrible person. It is nothing more than guilt by association.

I find this book repulsive because it tries to prove the existence of God through dishonest means. He blasts Sam Harris for his methods, when in the end Ravi Zacharias' methods are not much better. If God is the epitome of all truth, then there is no reason to resort to inane emotional, ad hominem arguments to prove his existence."

Greek Mythology. That is why I say that the Yorubas are Greeks. The Ibos are Jews and the Hausa/Fulani are Ishmaelites.

Great book. Must be digested

vooks:
Here is the book once again;
http://www.fairladyz32.com/downloads/christian/books/Ravi%20Zacharias/Ravi%20Zacharias%20-The%20End%20of%20Reason.pdf

No idea why the most militant atheists and wannabe thinkers are avoiding it like plague. They are mighty scared being wrong. Insecure pricks

ValentineMary:

I used to think u put up better arguments than this. I am disappointed.

Any time you are coherent, put up a thread and invite me. For now, please digest Ravi Zacharias

[size=1pt]

jayriginal:
http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/1055453403

Horrible. Preaching to the choir. Only those who already agree and want to will not realize how bad the arguments are.

Too many people have probably read this book without first reading Harris (or at least, not reading him very carefully and with an open mind). I am not looking to defend atheism so much as I am trying to show some examples of precisely where Zacharias gets it wrong, so you can see how he is mistreating Harris' work. It would be better to get a different book against the atheists if that's what you are so inclined to do. This one is simply no good.

In it, he notes Harris's arguments about the wrongness of Hitler's actions, and asserts that Harris does not put forth a criterion with which to judge moral actions. He writes, "For Harris to convince us that Hitler was wrong to do what he did, he has to borrow from an objective moral framework to support his point," (Zacharias 52). Ravi Zacharias is claiming that without God, there can be no objective morality. He is also claiming that Sam Harris has simply made up his own morality, "as if morality should be self-evident to everybody, regardless of whether God exists or not," (54). He thinks that Harris "cannot explain his innate sense of right and wrong - the reality of God's law written on his heart - because there is no logical explanation for how that intuition toward morality could develop from sheer matter and chemistry" (54-5). Nowhere does Ravi Zacharias see Sam Harris state what he thinks is moral, and thus he thinks that Harris has "concocted" his moral view "in his own mind" (54).

Interestingly, though, Sam Harris directly addresses this point in Letter to a Christian Nation. Early on in the book, he writes,

Questions of morality are questions about happiness and suffering. This is why you and I do no have moral obligations toward rocks. To the degree that our actions can affect the experience of other creatures positively or negatively, questions of morality apply," (Letter .

So, if Ravi Zacharias is trying to argue (and he is) that Harris never explains what he thinks is moral, then he must have missed this part early in the book. But in The End of Reason, Zacharias sets up this argument:
Premise one: "Objective moral values exist only if God exists."
Premise two: "Objective moral values do exist."
Conclusion: "Therefore God exists" (Zacharias 56).

The issue with the argument for an atheist such as Harris is in premise one, which Zacharias argues for on the prior page:
Premise one: "When you assert that there is such a thing as evil, you must assume there is such as thing as good."
Premise two: "When you say there is such a thing as good, you must assume there is a moral law by which to distinguish between good and evil. There must be some standard by which to determine what is good and what is evil."
Premise three: "When you assume a moral law, you must posit a moral lawgiver - the source of the moral law" (55).

The issue with this argument lies in premise three, as we will see. But it is important to note that Zacharias thinks that "this moral lawgiver is precisely who atheists are trying to disprove" (55). He means the God of the Bible. The reason I bring Zacharias so heavily into this argument is because I believe that his views on morality are common among Christians with a literal interpretation of the Bible (it seems that atheists like Harris often must defend against such attacks). It is important to discuss what Zacharias claims because it is a real and prevalent mindset that must be philosophically combated.

[/size]

Am I the only one noting lengthy diatribes in the name of review which are LONGER than the actual book?

More excerpts on the way

vooks:


Am I the only one noting lengthy diatribes in the name of review which are LONGER than the actual book?

It's a review.

Had to find out what the book was about and I posted for the benefit of others.

jayriginal:

It's a review.

Had to find out what the book was about and I posted for the benefit of others.

The book is only 145 pages. I can get you tons of positive reviews FYI. Please read for yourself and then critique it. What are you scared of?

vooks:

The book is only 145 pages. I can get you tons of positive reviews FYI. Please read for yourself and then critique it. What are you scared of?

Err nothing.

I've got TONS of stuff to do. The Harris book? The one this book is meant to address? I've had it for years, haven't read it. Im sure not going to read this one. You had me interested though, that's why I went to look for the reviews to see if I'd be wasting my time.

Have you read the Harris book by the way?

As for the so called objective reviews, I saw a few. SMH.

jayriginal:


Err nothing.

I've got TONS of stuff to do. The Harris book? The one this book is meant to address? I've had it for years, haven't read it. Im sure not going to read this one. You had me interested though, that's why I went to look for the reviews to see if I'd be wasting my time.

Have you read the Harris book by the way?

As for the so called objective reviews, I saw a few. SMH.

You got tons of stuff to do, yet you can afford to patronize NL and you still have time to google reviews and paste them here verbatim

I find it ironical that a super time-conscious man spends more time on reviews far longer than the book

Seriously atheists, it's 145 pages and its a free pdf.

Richirich713:
Seriously atheists, it's 145 pages and its a free pdf.

All they are making are silly excuses

vooks:

You got tons of stuff to do, yet you can afford to patronize NL and you still have time to google reviews and paste them here verbatim

I find it ironical that a super time-conscious man spends more time on reviews far longer than the book

I take dumps too.

I'm not allowed to do that either?

jayriginal:


I take dumps too.

I'm not allowed to do that either?

You tell me.

Richirich713:
Seriously atheists, it's 145 pages and its a free pdf.

while people like cloudgoddess have read books on evolution - 100 times the number of pages and price of the free pdf

vooks:

All they are making are silly excuses

It's only one click, but still they refuse to open their minds and consider both sides of the story.

BTW great website, downloaded some books I've been looking for quite some time.

Richirich713:


It's only one click, but still they refuse to open their minds and consider both sides of the story.

BTW great website, downloaded some books I've been looking for quite some time.

You are most welcome my brother.
Ravi terrifies them

There's this fancy word called time. Don't know if you've ever heard of it?

Now it's irreplaceable, and can be short at times (there's the word again). At such periods, when time is short another fancy word comes into play. The second word is priority. We tend to do the things ranked highest TO US on our priority list. It may be a better use of my time to count my teeth with my tongue than to say, read a free "mere" 145 page book. It's MY TIME!

I was interested in the book but had to make sure I wouldn't waste MY TIME, so I invested a little time in looking up reviews and in doing so, I saved myself the anguish and I posted here to help others save their time too.

KingEbukasBlog:


while people like cloudgoddess have read books on evolution - 100 times the number of pages and price of the free pdf

The book is written in simple English!

jayriginal:
There's this fancy word called time. Don't know if you've ever heard of it?

Now it's irreplaceable, and can be short at times (there's the word again). At such periods, when time is short another fancy word comes into play. The second word is priority. We tend to do the things ranked highest TO US on our priority list. It may be a better use of my time to count my teeth with my tongue than to say, read a free "mere" 145 page book. It's MY TIME!

I was interested in the book but had to make sure I wouldn't waste MY TIME, so I invested a little time in looking up reviews and in doing so, I saved myself the anguish and I posted here to help others save their time too.

You have wasted far more time avoiding it by chewing through reviews that are several times longer and confused as the book. Obviously you have little time for Ravi because he scares you. If he scared me, I'd not even furiously google the reviews , I'd be too busy with other stuff

vooks:

You have wasted far more time avoiding it by chewing through reviews that are several times longer and confused as the book. Obviously you have little time for Ravi because he scares you. If he scared me, I'd not even furiously google the reviews , I'd be too busy with other stuff

It's MY TIME.

I don't do what you want me to do because someone I never heard of before today scares me?

Sound reasoning.

jayriginal:


It's MY TIME.

Of course it's your time. Who said it ain't?
What we are saying is TIME is a lame excuse for avoiding Ravi

I don't do what you want me to do because someone I never heard of before today scares me?

Sound reasoning.

I don't 'want' you to do nothing sir, I shared a book and invited all to read and then we can review it. It is abundantly clear that Ravi terrifies some of us for reasons known best to themselves

vooks:

Of course it's your time. Who said it ain't?
What we are saying is TIME is a lame excuse for avoiding Ravi


I don't 'want' you to do nothing sir, I shared a book and invited all to read and then we can review it. It is abundantly clear that Ravi terrifies some of us for reasons known best to themselves

I get it, you're trolling. Enjoy.

jayriginal:



I get it, you're trolling. Enjoy.

Good night

vooks:

Thank you. Please share your thoughts on the same as soon as you are done.

I was disappointed by the way the book started in the prologue. A child becomes an atheist and so his family begins to fall apart, and his pious christian mother commits suicide. How absurd. The pious mother is so distressed by something as trivial as her son losing his faith (granted it isn't trivial to her), that she ends up violating the tenets of the faith herself as a solution. And the fault isn't the parents' who weren't mature enough to handle the situation as adults but allowed their family fall apart because of a single black sheep. No, the fault is the atheist's. Then he goes on to tell us this story is fiction. Here, Ravi betrays his true feelings. He would definitely love it if this macabre fictional story of his played out in every home where someone became an atheist. For that would at once prove his point that atheism is detrimental. But thankfully, this isn't the case.

He then accuses Harris of appealing to emotions. Tell me, if the fictional tale in his prologue isn't an appeal to emotions, then what is it? In fact, he ends the book with another appeal to emotions.

His arguments are the same generic apologetic ones atheists are familiar with. How morality is the exclusive preserve of the Judeo-Christian god. How man is incapable of building a moral framework because man is totally depraved. He then cites examples to show man is inherently evil. He ignores cases that appear to prove otherwise. He keeps rehashing bromides and tries to convince his reader that Harris is such a terrible person.

I stopped expecting anything serious from this book after reading that prologue. I've read better christian apologetics than this. C.S Lewis comes to mind.

BTW, I thought this book was a response to "The End of Faith", judging by the title.

jayriginal:
There's this fancy word called time. Don't know if you've ever heard of it?

Now it's irreplaceable, and can be short at times (there's the word again). At such periods, when time is short another fancy word comes into play. The second word is priority. We tend to do the things ranked highest TO US on our priority list. It may be a better use of my time to count my teeth with my tongue than to say, read a free "mere" 145 page book. It's MY TIME!

I was interested in the book but had to make sure I wouldn't waste MY TIME, so I invested a little time in looking up reviews and in doing so, I saved myself the anguish and I posted here to help others save their time too.

you should have posted this yesterday. I missed football practice and my favourite series to find out what so special about the book. I won't get back those wasted seconds without a time machine

McSterling:
I was disappointed by the way the book started in the prologue. A child becomes an atheist and so his family begins to fall apart, and his pious christian mother commits suicide. How absurd. The pious mother is so distressed by something as trivial as her son losing his faith (granted it isn't trivial to her), that she ends up violating the tenets of the faith herself as a solution. And the fault isn't the parents' who weren't mature enough to handle the situation as adults but allowed their family fall apart because of a single black sheep. No, the fault is the atheist's. Then he goes on to tell us this story is fiction. Here, Ravi betrays his true feelings. He would definitely love it if this macabre fictional story of his played out in every home where someone became an atheist. For that would at once prove his point that atheism is detrimental. But thankfully, this isn't the case.

He then accuses Harris of appealing to emotions. Tell me, if the fictional tale in his prologue isn't an appeal to emotions, then what is it? In fact, he ends the book with another appeal to emotions.

His arguments are the same generic apologetic ones atheists are familiar with. How morality is the exclusive preserve of the Judeo-Christian god. How man is incapable of building a moral framework because man is totally depraved. He then cites examples to show man is inherently evil. He ignores cases that appear to prove otherwise. He keeps rehashing bromides and tries to convince his reader that Harris is such a terrible person.

I stopped expecting anything serious from this book after reading that prologue. I've read better christian apologetics than this. C.S Lewis comes to mind.

BTW, I thought this book was a response to "The End of Faith", judging by the title.

This is an incredibly ridiculous excuse for shunning Ravi.
He s quite clear that is hypothetical on the prologue. Then am pleasantly surprised that you know the contents of his book enough to critique it yet you never went beyond the prologue....

Did you get this far?
But why do I begin to address a work as serious- minded as that of Harris with an imaginary scene like the one above? Because realities that are far from imaginary are enveloped in this story, and I wonder what Harris would say to those possibilities.

He may argue that the grief his book may cause families such as this one is justified and even nec- essary sometimes if the young student in the story and others like him are going to stop believing and living a lie. Does this sound familiar? He may well justify any amount of grief to any number of people because of an insistence that the value of his “truth” is greater than the destruction of a family. But to do so raises a huge question, doesn’t it? If in the microcosm of this one little episode Harris were to justify the devastation he has caused for the sake of what he sees as the truth, why does he deny God the same justification for allowing suffering in all of the intricacies and possibilities of a lifetime?

Oluwaseytiano:
you should have posted this yesterday. I missed football practice and my favourite series to find out what so special about the book. I won't get back those wasted seconds without a time machine

You have no bundles to download the book, so I'm not sure what you missed by hanging around

Oluwaseytiano:
you should have posted this yesterday. I missed football practice and my favourite series to find out what so special about the book. I won't get back those wasted seconds without a time machine

Omo the way they were hyping the book, you'd think it was Ghost written by Alvin Platinga or CS Lewis.

I had to do a quick check before committing my time.

I wonder what they expect would happen. Perhaps the reader would experience an epiphany. Lol.