What do you think?
Rate this book
Atheism Kills: The Dangers of a World Without God – and Cause for Hope
In Atheism Kills, Barak Lurie exposes the horrors of a world without God. Contrary to the mantra we've heard time and time again that religion is responsible for more deaths than anything else, it is in fact the absence of God which has killed--in obscene numbers. Ever since atheism first assumed government control in the French Revolution, it has done nothing but kill. Atheism has killed through its many progressivism, eugenics, fascism, and communism. Lurie shows that it was the godlessness in each of these ideologies that killed hundreds of millions. But atheism doesn't just kill lives. It kills purpose, free will, beauty, compassion, a sense of the past and future, creativity, and freedom itself. Atheism offers only the horrors of chaos and totalitarianism. The world misplaces its focus on Radical Islam as the greatest threat to civilization. As horrible as it is, it is doing nothing and having no sense of self which are the true enemies. It was our will to fight and sense of mission that overcame fascism and communism. We must have these to keep Radical Islam at bay, too. This is why we must resist the growth of atheism. It was God that gave us our freedom. It was God who gave our sense of purpose that created civilization. Take those away, and there is nothing to fight for. In this way, Lurie shows that the lack of belief in God is our greatest danger. How does he know? Because like a hurricane, godlessness has only known how to destroy everything in its path. It has never created. Like there will always be fires, there will always be enemies that seek to destroy our civilization. But if we don't have fire stations with crew, and protocol in each city to deal with fires, those fires will consume us. Likewise, how we prepare ourselves to deal with horrific ideologies will be what saves us. That preparation can only come with our embrace of the centrality of God. Foreword written by Dennis Prager.
- GenresReligionNonfiction
384 pages, Kindle Edition
Published April 2, 2018
39 people are currently reading
159 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 12 of 12 reviews
September 25, 2020
"Atheism Kills" by Barak Lurie is best summarized by Todd Snider's lyrics of "Conservative Christian, Right Wing, Republican, Straight, White, American Male." A masterpiece of mental gymnastic through a litany of logical fallacies.
Despite the lexicon definition of "atheism" as the lack of belief in the existence of god or any gods, the writer's strawman - "atheism is an immoral, soulless and cruel governing ideology that leads to chaos or horrific evil with its utopian agenda" - is literally the trump card to hammer away the premise, humanity bites the dust due to atheism.
Almost, if not all of the content is begging for questions with the circular reasoning of "atheism must be evil because it demands destruction and oppression, as mayhem is the rule; goodness the exception. "
The claim that atheist kills is mainly established through the guilt by association to nihilism, authoritarianism, fascism, as well as eugenics. In my opinion, the correlation of several cherry picked "godless states" being the causation of genocides is explicitly irrelevant to atheism. By comparing the "numbers of murders committed by religious killings to notorious tyrants" in order to justify religion as the better of two evils is above my head. Through this rendered false dilemma, the religious lawyer has ironically strengthened the assertion of 'religion kills' instead.
Lurie states that "atheism places far too much faith in logic," and thus, amoral because logic has no absolute moral standard to gauge "right" or "wrong". I do agree with the writer that "morality is not the same as logic," but the faulty generalization of "atheists believe that logic is universal, and there is only one logical answer to every circumstance" is simply senseless.
The bold writer also resorts to false statements such as "No atheist institution or other group pushing godlessness created any schools, hospitals, or social infrastructure of any kind" while amplifying the contribution of Judeo-Christian to the Western civilization. Again, what have those got to do with atheism kills?
In his book, Lurie elaborates that the bundling of "-isms" including "environmentalism, vegetarianism, feminism, sexual proclivities, relativism, progressivism, collectivism, Darwinism, income equality, same sex marriage, and so on," is merely the needs of the atheists to satisfy their God impulse. The notions are deemed to "reject God and to find another human god" as well as to kill "individual freedom, free will, humans' need to matter, structure, skepticism towards radicalism, arts, beauty, music, and most importantly civilization." The classical need of the theist's questionable cause to seek God is not necessarily applied to the atheists.
Overall, the book is, in my opinion, an epic fail to portray godlessness as an antagonism.
Despite the lexicon definition of "atheism" as the lack of belief in the existence of god or any gods, the writer's strawman - "atheism is an immoral, soulless and cruel governing ideology that leads to chaos or horrific evil with its utopian agenda" - is literally the trump card to hammer away the premise, humanity bites the dust due to atheism.
Almost, if not all of the content is begging for questions with the circular reasoning of "atheism must be evil because it demands destruction and oppression, as mayhem is the rule; goodness the exception. "
The claim that atheist kills is mainly established through the guilt by association to nihilism, authoritarianism, fascism, as well as eugenics. In my opinion, the correlation of several cherry picked "godless states" being the causation of genocides is explicitly irrelevant to atheism. By comparing the "numbers of murders committed by religious killings to notorious tyrants" in order to justify religion as the better of two evils is above my head. Through this rendered false dilemma, the religious lawyer has ironically strengthened the assertion of 'religion kills' instead.
Lurie states that "atheism places far too much faith in logic," and thus, amoral because logic has no absolute moral standard to gauge "right" or "wrong". I do agree with the writer that "morality is not the same as logic," but the faulty generalization of "atheists believe that logic is universal, and there is only one logical answer to every circumstance" is simply senseless.
The bold writer also resorts to false statements such as "No atheist institution or other group pushing godlessness created any schools, hospitals, or social infrastructure of any kind" while amplifying the contribution of Judeo-Christian to the Western civilization. Again, what have those got to do with atheism kills?
In his book, Lurie elaborates that the bundling of "-isms" including "environmentalism, vegetarianism, feminism, sexual proclivities, relativism, progressivism, collectivism, Darwinism, income equality, same sex marriage, and so on," is merely the needs of the atheists to satisfy their God impulse. The notions are deemed to "reject God and to find another human god" as well as to kill "individual freedom, free will, humans' need to matter, structure, skepticism towards radicalism, arts, beauty, music, and most importantly civilization." The classical need of the theist's questionable cause to seek God is not necessarily applied to the atheists.
Overall, the book is, in my opinion, an epic fail to portray godlessness as an antagonism.
January 5, 2019
Full of logical fallacies. Poor attempt at proving the utility of religion in the modern world 🌎.
January 8, 2022
Horribly, logically flawed book that thoroughly misunderstands history and atheism.
March 6, 2018
A wonderful book, I enjoyed every minute and each chapter became my favorite. Before I started reading it, I thought I would like the book because I already agreed with its premise, but I didn’t realize I would learn so much and be so entertained and enlightened. It’s packed full of stories and facts with humor and pop culture sprinkled throughout. The message is important and relevant and inspiring and hopeful.
September 17, 2022
I'm not mad, just disappointed.
Overall, Barak Lurie makes some intriguing points about the nature of atheism and how its confidence begets absurdity. His work however is tainted by his plain theological bigotry against Islam and Muslims. I can excuse some misconceptions to the average layman under the guise of general ignorance, but it is clear that Lurie is not trying to approach this from a somewhat objective standpoint.
Instead of a genuine, academic exercise with the end goal being an approach towards Truth, the book seems more to be written from an informal, subjective approach as though he were talking frankly with you on the street. This has the side effect of including his own personal bigotry and unrestricted, unacademic biases. There may be a market for writing in such a casual, non-professional demeanour, but not for me.
There were, however, some interesting points which widened my own thoughts on the topic and are worth mentioning.
Amongst the stronger arguments Lurie mentions are the idea that the common '-isms' of the day (such as Veganism, Secularism and Communism to name a few) are but attempts by man to fill the hole in society left by their abandoned belief in God. I find this to be a powerful argument since its foundation goes much deeper. Without an objective moral standard for human beings to judge between themselves by, we have left open the door to defining what good and evil are. The problem is, this door can never be closed.
Assuming the non-existence of God means that there is no transcendent source of morality that could ever be applied to all people with which none could argue above. Instead we are faced with a reality wherein every man can claim a version of morality for himself, with no higher standard to judge between them by. The man who says that injuring a baby is morally the same as scratching his own head simply cannot be proven to be objectively wrong. There simply exists no objective moral infrastructure to do so. Thus we find that the only way to impose any sort of morality upon another is, ultimately, by force (or the threat thereof).
This gaping hole has led to many a man/woman inventing their own ideologies in order to advance causes they subjectively believe to be morally just. These movements espouse ideas which are but a shadow attempting to lay claim to the objective commandments of God. Without such commandments, we must make our own movements to advance the causes we feel to be morally just. The justification for why these moral claims are objectively true in the first place is never addressed and the hole in society left by the abandonment of God is yet unfulfilled.
Another interesting point was the fact that laws and statues in our times are increasingly full of wording narrowing down edicts to the most minute detail. Entire jobs are dedicated to ensuring that laws are crafted and detailed in such a way that none can escape their meaning. This type of language has informally been named as 'legalese'. But how does this relate to Religion/Atheism? Lurie proposes that this is due to the lack of abiding by a transcendent moral code that is present only in Religion. Where once men were held to their word and their honour before the All-Knowing, All-Seeing God, now modern atheist man sees no-one watching him from above, and therefore will find any excuse to slip out of the clauses and contracts he has signed himself into. The once deeply meaningful, transcendent concepts of honour have been done away with and the atheist finds himself in a state where he is free to deceive, backtrack and even steal to serve his own interests. Instead of the fear of God in a man, he is constrained by the minutia of rhetorical definition.
Lurie points out another idea that I now believe to be accurate after reading this book - the fact that atheism inherently believes in nothing transcendent or objective means that any cause for distinction is erased. To elaborate, the primary moral distinction between good and evil is one that can only be defined - as mentioned earlier - by a transcendent Creator. Without believing in God, we remove any basis for objective definitions of what continues 'good' or 'evil', but it doesn't end there. This narrative trickles down into all other aspects of life.
We lose the solid definitions of what it means to be a human being compared to any other lifeform that lives with us on the earth (when people say that we are just another animal) we lose the desire to dress formally in a professional setting, we lose the respect for legitimate authority (such as students disrespecting their teachers) and more. In recent times, this has even extended to the definitions of man and woman.
The final point from Barak Lurie which intrigued me was regarding the attitude many atheists may extend to the religious in belittling their understanding of reality, of human society. It is not uncommon to hear from an atheist that many religious laws and promoted characteristics are out of touch or simply inapplicable in our 'modern' times. The reality however, is that the devoutly religious in many religions (I speak as a Muslim myself) attend sermons, lectures and lessons where stories of Prophets and righteous men from the past and narrated and studied. These narrated stories are expanded upon, studied and lessons ultimately are extracted from them. What results is essentially an in-depth study of (amongst other things) human nature and a wisdom which strives to elevate man to a higher level of consciousness. The result is that the life of a believer is full of the constant, regular study of human nature. This leads to a higher appreciation and understanding of people and life compared to the atheists who rarely, if ever, engage in such study in their own lives.
It turns out that it is the religious who are generally more attuned to the intricacies of human nature, and the inheritors of the wisdom from lessons of those who came before us.
In conclusion, while there are some intriguing points present in this work, it is ultimately presented in a very informal manner, which can be off-putting to some looking for a more formal study of the matter. This book is also wrapped in the bigotry against Islam and Muslims, repeating the popular tropes and stereotypes of the day such as 'No-Go Zones' and the oppression of women. It is known and clear to all who are willing to study that not only are these tropes false, but they betray more about the claimant than the accused. It seems as though some of Lurie's claims about the ignorance of atheists can easily be pointed back unto himself.
I hope for Barak Lurie to engage in some legitimate study of Islam, to reach out to Muslims beyond the stereotypes he has and to benefit from the rich Islamic tradition of speaking against atheism using rational, logical proofs as well as its open, coherent, provable epistemology.
Overall, I have benefitted from some of the ideas presented within this book, but I would not recommend anyone take from his ideas regarding areas he really hasn't studied much in.
Overall, Barak Lurie makes some intriguing points about the nature of atheism and how its confidence begets absurdity. His work however is tainted by his plain theological bigotry against Islam and Muslims. I can excuse some misconceptions to the average layman under the guise of general ignorance, but it is clear that Lurie is not trying to approach this from a somewhat objective standpoint.
Instead of a genuine, academic exercise with the end goal being an approach towards Truth, the book seems more to be written from an informal, subjective approach as though he were talking frankly with you on the street. This has the side effect of including his own personal bigotry and unrestricted, unacademic biases. There may be a market for writing in such a casual, non-professional demeanour, but not for me.
There were, however, some interesting points which widened my own thoughts on the topic and are worth mentioning.
Amongst the stronger arguments Lurie mentions are the idea that the common '-isms' of the day (such as Veganism, Secularism and Communism to name a few) are but attempts by man to fill the hole in society left by their abandoned belief in God. I find this to be a powerful argument since its foundation goes much deeper. Without an objective moral standard for human beings to judge between themselves by, we have left open the door to defining what good and evil are. The problem is, this door can never be closed.
Assuming the non-existence of God means that there is no transcendent source of morality that could ever be applied to all people with which none could argue above. Instead we are faced with a reality wherein every man can claim a version of morality for himself, with no higher standard to judge between them by. The man who says that injuring a baby is morally the same as scratching his own head simply cannot be proven to be objectively wrong. There simply exists no objective moral infrastructure to do so. Thus we find that the only way to impose any sort of morality upon another is, ultimately, by force (or the threat thereof).
This gaping hole has led to many a man/woman inventing their own ideologies in order to advance causes they subjectively believe to be morally just. These movements espouse ideas which are but a shadow attempting to lay claim to the objective commandments of God. Without such commandments, we must make our own movements to advance the causes we feel to be morally just. The justification for why these moral claims are objectively true in the first place is never addressed and the hole in society left by the abandonment of God is yet unfulfilled.
Another interesting point was the fact that laws and statues in our times are increasingly full of wording narrowing down edicts to the most minute detail. Entire jobs are dedicated to ensuring that laws are crafted and detailed in such a way that none can escape their meaning. This type of language has informally been named as 'legalese'. But how does this relate to Religion/Atheism? Lurie proposes that this is due to the lack of abiding by a transcendent moral code that is present only in Religion. Where once men were held to their word and their honour before the All-Knowing, All-Seeing God, now modern atheist man sees no-one watching him from above, and therefore will find any excuse to slip out of the clauses and contracts he has signed himself into. The once deeply meaningful, transcendent concepts of honour have been done away with and the atheist finds himself in a state where he is free to deceive, backtrack and even steal to serve his own interests. Instead of the fear of God in a man, he is constrained by the minutia of rhetorical definition.
Lurie points out another idea that I now believe to be accurate after reading this book - the fact that atheism inherently believes in nothing transcendent or objective means that any cause for distinction is erased. To elaborate, the primary moral distinction between good and evil is one that can only be defined - as mentioned earlier - by a transcendent Creator. Without believing in God, we remove any basis for objective definitions of what continues 'good' or 'evil', but it doesn't end there. This narrative trickles down into all other aspects of life.
We lose the solid definitions of what it means to be a human being compared to any other lifeform that lives with us on the earth (when people say that we are just another animal) we lose the desire to dress formally in a professional setting, we lose the respect for legitimate authority (such as students disrespecting their teachers) and more. In recent times, this has even extended to the definitions of man and woman.
The final point from Barak Lurie which intrigued me was regarding the attitude many atheists may extend to the religious in belittling their understanding of reality, of human society. It is not uncommon to hear from an atheist that many religious laws and promoted characteristics are out of touch or simply inapplicable in our 'modern' times. The reality however, is that the devoutly religious in many religions (I speak as a Muslim myself) attend sermons, lectures and lessons where stories of Prophets and righteous men from the past and narrated and studied. These narrated stories are expanded upon, studied and lessons ultimately are extracted from them. What results is essentially an in-depth study of (amongst other things) human nature and a wisdom which strives to elevate man to a higher level of consciousness. The result is that the life of a believer is full of the constant, regular study of human nature. This leads to a higher appreciation and understanding of people and life compared to the atheists who rarely, if ever, engage in such study in their own lives.
It turns out that it is the religious who are generally more attuned to the intricacies of human nature, and the inheritors of the wisdom from lessons of those who came before us.
In conclusion, while there are some intriguing points present in this work, it is ultimately presented in a very informal manner, which can be off-putting to some looking for a more formal study of the matter. This book is also wrapped in the bigotry against Islam and Muslims, repeating the popular tropes and stereotypes of the day such as 'No-Go Zones' and the oppression of women. It is known and clear to all who are willing to study that not only are these tropes false, but they betray more about the claimant than the accused. It seems as though some of Lurie's claims about the ignorance of atheists can easily be pointed back unto himself.
I hope for Barak Lurie to engage in some legitimate study of Islam, to reach out to Muslims beyond the stereotypes he has and to benefit from the rich Islamic tradition of speaking against atheism using rational, logical proofs as well as its open, coherent, provable epistemology.
Overall, I have benefitted from some of the ideas presented within this book, but I would not recommend anyone take from his ideas regarding areas he really hasn't studied much in.
July 26, 2018
I really wish Atheism Kills: The Dangers of a World Without God – and Cause for Hope by Barak Lurie had been written back when I was in college.
If I had read this book back when I was in college, I would have had the information needed to stand my ground against college professors who took every opportunity to speak about what they called, “The Christian Myth”.
This book is incredibly well-researched and very well-written. The author is a former atheist who found enough credible evidence in his life to prove to his sceptical mind that God is real.
In the book, he talks about all the evil that has been committed in the world due to the lack of faith in God, or in any religion for that matter. He gives his readers information about the rise and fall of different civilizations and what caused the fall.
However, this book is very much like Fox News. It attempts to be fair and balanced. The facts are presented from both perspectives and both sides. The author does lean away from atheism, which is to be expected. He presents the facts that an atheist would use to present his case for atheism.
We give Atheism Kills all five stars. We think that all Judeo Christian churches should have a small group scripture study utilizing this book.
We were sent a complimentary copy of this book. We are under no obligation to write any review, positive or negative.
We are disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission's 16 CFR, Part 255.
If I had read this book back when I was in college, I would have had the information needed to stand my ground against college professors who took every opportunity to speak about what they called, “The Christian Myth”.
This book is incredibly well-researched and very well-written. The author is a former atheist who found enough credible evidence in his life to prove to his sceptical mind that God is real.
In the book, he talks about all the evil that has been committed in the world due to the lack of faith in God, or in any religion for that matter. He gives his readers information about the rise and fall of different civilizations and what caused the fall.
However, this book is very much like Fox News. It attempts to be fair and balanced. The facts are presented from both perspectives and both sides. The author does lean away from atheism, which is to be expected. He presents the facts that an atheist would use to present his case for atheism.
We give Atheism Kills all five stars. We think that all Judeo Christian churches should have a small group scripture study utilizing this book.
We were sent a complimentary copy of this book. We are under no obligation to write any review, positive or negative.
We are disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission's 16 CFR, Part 255.
January 15, 2018
I am sympathetic to the author's position, so I was hoping to like this book more than I did.
I don't think any atheists would be impressed by his arguments and those already opposed to atheism are already converted to his viewpoint.
I don't think any atheists would be impressed by his arguments and those already opposed to atheism are already converted to his viewpoint.
August 12, 2021
point aimed at by author is valid and worthy. but this book is an incompetent counter productive attempt at it.
March 29, 2021
This was a valiant effort to defend belief in God against atheism. Lurie starts by answering the shibboleth about religion killing more people than anything else in history. While that may have once been true, the events of the 20th century have dramatically tipped the scales against atheism. If you didn't already know that, then perhaps you should read this book.
However, there were moments when I thought Lurie could have made a stronger argument. Case in point was his discussion of the Spanish Inquisition.
He does explain that the death toll of the Spanish Inquisition has been exaggerated by the enemies of the Church. (Since the opening of the archives, we have come to know more about the Spanish Inquisition than ever before, and it turns out that, contrary to expectation, only three to five thousand people were sentenced to death over 350 years.) But while one death would have been one too many, what most people don't realize is that twice as many priests and nuns were killed in just six months of the year 1936 by Marxist atheists who hated God and killed priests and nuns in Spain simply because they were priests and nuns. This was a golden opportunity for Lurie to strengthen his argument about death tolls, but he misses it.
For more information about religious persecution during the Spanish Civil War, I would recommend:
"Last Crusade: Spain 1936" by Warren Carroll
"Catholic Martyrs of the Spanish Civil War" by Fray Justo Perez de Urbel
"The Seige of the Alcázar" by Cecil D Eby
"Redemptorist of Cuenca: Six Martyrs of the Spanish Civil War" by Fr. Gary Lauenstein
You could also watch the movies "Poveda" or "A Forbidden God."
Also, while Lurie does mention several popes who condemned the trans-Atlantic Slave Trade as it was happening, he leaves out the 15th and 16th century papal condemnations of slavery in the Canary Islands and the New World respectively. "The Sublime God" by Pope Paul III is one of the most important abolitionist documents ever written, and it was issued in 1537. (It condemns on pain of excommunication not only the enslavement of the indigenous peoples of the Americas, but that of any other peoples that Christians may discover throughout the world.)
For more on this, I would recommend:
"The Popes and Slavery" by Fr Joel S Panzer
Also, Lurie leaves out the earliest Catholic abolitionists like Fr Antonio de Montessino and Fr Bartolomé de Las Casas of the Order of Preachers (Dominicans). I suppose people tend to focus on William Wilberforce in England because his efforts were more successful in the long run. Although the Dominican abolitionists came much earlier, they did not find lasting success. The same could be said of Queen Isabel the Catholic for that matter.
I would recommend:
"Isabel of Spain: The Catholic Queen" by Warren Carroll
"How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization" by Tom E Woods (also referenced by Lurie)
You could also watch the movies "Amazing Grace" and "The Mission."
All this being said, Lurie does a far better job that I could have managed. The scope of his book is ambitious, and he pulls it off well -- all things considered.
However, there were moments when I thought Lurie could have made a stronger argument. Case in point was his discussion of the Spanish Inquisition.
He does explain that the death toll of the Spanish Inquisition has been exaggerated by the enemies of the Church. (Since the opening of the archives, we have come to know more about the Spanish Inquisition than ever before, and it turns out that, contrary to expectation, only three to five thousand people were sentenced to death over 350 years.) But while one death would have been one too many, what most people don't realize is that twice as many priests and nuns were killed in just six months of the year 1936 by Marxist atheists who hated God and killed priests and nuns in Spain simply because they were priests and nuns. This was a golden opportunity for Lurie to strengthen his argument about death tolls, but he misses it.
For more information about religious persecution during the Spanish Civil War, I would recommend:
"Last Crusade: Spain 1936" by Warren Carroll
"Catholic Martyrs of the Spanish Civil War" by Fray Justo Perez de Urbel
"The Seige of the Alcázar" by Cecil D Eby
"Redemptorist of Cuenca: Six Martyrs of the Spanish Civil War" by Fr. Gary Lauenstein
You could also watch the movies "Poveda" or "A Forbidden God."
Also, while Lurie does mention several popes who condemned the trans-Atlantic Slave Trade as it was happening, he leaves out the 15th and 16th century papal condemnations of slavery in the Canary Islands and the New World respectively. "The Sublime God" by Pope Paul III is one of the most important abolitionist documents ever written, and it was issued in 1537. (It condemns on pain of excommunication not only the enslavement of the indigenous peoples of the Americas, but that of any other peoples that Christians may discover throughout the world.)
For more on this, I would recommend:
"The Popes and Slavery" by Fr Joel S Panzer
Also, Lurie leaves out the earliest Catholic abolitionists like Fr Antonio de Montessino and Fr Bartolomé de Las Casas of the Order of Preachers (Dominicans). I suppose people tend to focus on William Wilberforce in England because his efforts were more successful in the long run. Although the Dominican abolitionists came much earlier, they did not find lasting success. The same could be said of Queen Isabel the Catholic for that matter.
I would recommend:
"Isabel of Spain: The Catholic Queen" by Warren Carroll
"How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization" by Tom E Woods (also referenced by Lurie)
You could also watch the movies "Amazing Grace" and "The Mission."
All this being said, Lurie does a far better job that I could have managed. The scope of his book is ambitious, and he pulls it off well -- all things considered.
March 4, 2023
Even though I am a theist and read this book to answer atheist but this book is totally rubish ! This book is based on Wikipedia. Totally unacademically.
March 7, 2022
Something to think about
While some may not agree with premesis and conclusions in this book, a solid and clear case is made about the darkness in atheism, a case that should make all.of us think.
While some may not agree with premesis and conclusions in this book, a solid and clear case is made about the darkness in atheism, a case that should make all.of us think.
Displaying 1 - 12 of 12 reviews