Rating: 
Summary: Ideas expressed here are simple and common
Review: I purchased this publication anticipating some analytical explanation as to, "Why he was not a Christian" unfortunately this entire book stated only elementary ideas and, quite honestly I was to the point that I wanted the book to end. The entire appendix, (1/4 of the book) consists of the court battle Russell had with the state of NY. Evidently Russell has simply congregated a assortment of his most rudimentary essays and attempted to structure a coherent, logical book. He has failed miserably....
Rating:
Summary: poor logic, sophistic arguments
Review: The title of this book should be "Why I Am Not Better Known" since the poor logic and sophistic arguments show only too well why philosophy students skip right over Russell and read more influential authors. Any dogmatist will embrace a well constructed argument against his position, but this is not one.You may not believe in the teachings of Christ, but if you can follow a logically constructed argument, this is a sorely disappointing book.
Rating: 
Summary: Lacking in too much knowledge to sumise to such a decision.
Review: I must be honest and admit that I didn't read this book, I read an excerpt off of the web. I didn't need to go on upon finding Mr.Russell lacking in the truth of what Christ believed. To put in short, Christ did not believe in an eternal punishment called hell. This hell that Mr. Russell thinks is hell is due to the misinterpretation of hell through the centuries. Hell is a burning fire at the end. This burning fire will burn you up so that you are neither root nor branch. We are not immortal that we should burn forever, and our loving God would not put us there considering we didn't ask to be here.The fear tactic of hell was designed to do what is does. It keeps people in the church. Love is the bases for everything God does, and no Christ did not believe you should burn forever. Mr. Russell needs to rethink his steps beginning with the truth. Especially when the outcome will be ashes or eternal life.
Rating:
Summary: Open spaces from Ocultism
Review: No way you can judge faith by means of logic. So, you better keep from thinking about dirty things all religions have done and will continue to do. But, like Yoga said, if there's a God, He must be shown by reason, the only means we have to think the universe. God defense usually try to discourage us finding the explanation for life, while supportting all evil on earth by acting with kind of logical society rules. Much more than you can find against Jesus Myth in Russell's writing you'll see in ancient knowledge reviews like Isis Unveiled. Jews and christians long time ago work hard to gather information, explain it their way and keep you from knowing the rest. This is a wonderful book that is going to be out of reach of the american youth cause this is the way this society works: killing their interest in being different.
Rating: 
Summary: well written... a great read.
Review: What is the strongest point of this collection of brilliant (although sometimes dated) essays? "The good life is one inspired by love and guided by knowledge." Know how to improve the life of your loved ones, and do it. Beautiful. How does Mr. Russell explain why he is not a Christian? He does NOT try to prove that Christ did not exist... that is NOT his point. Whether Christ existed or not, Mr. Russell's point is that Christ did not possess perfect wisdom in his teachings. Therefore Mr. Russell can not believe that Christ is his savior. Other essays deal with the perpetuation of needless suffering and cruelty by religious establishments in general, Christian or otherwise. This material is required reading for everyone.
Rating:
Summary: I wouldn't read this book if I was afraid to think...
Review: This book is not just about why Russell was not a Christian. It covers everything from academic freedom to sexual morals. Some of the material is a bit dated, but even the dated material is worth reading. This isn't a highly technical book. The actual chapter "Why I am not a Christian" is just a transcript of a speech. One should not think that this is the best Russell can offer as far as philosophy goes. It is meant more for the common reader than the professional philosopher.
Rating:
Summary: Great book, solid arguments, a challenge to believers
Review: Russell's easy-to-understand logic dominiates the work, presenting an almost watertight case against contemporary mythology. Christians of the world beware: this book will change your life forever.
Rating:
Summary: One Of The Books That Changed My Life For Ever
Review: Although I started questioning the exisitence of God 40 years ago, until I read this book, my thoughts were not presentable in any scientific manner of speaking. In 1954 I took a challenge to read all the books by people who won Nobel Prize for Literature and that was how I came to read this one because Russell kept on writing until he died. This book articualated my thoughts exactly except from the perspective of a person totally different from my upbringing. I was amazed at the common bond between men and women wherever they are by the Rationality inherent in humans. Everyone who needs to instill clarity in his thinking should read this book. I give 2 thumbs up. I can read any Book By Bertrand Russell any day.
Rating:
Summary: A classic of its kind, slightly flawed in places.
Review: I first read Russell's book as a young student, and it certainly put into intellectual context what I believed in my heart. I should add that I was not brought up to have religious beliefs, but neither was I taught to deride spiritual teachings. Bertrand Russell became a great hero of mine-- I joined the CND in England and followed his career until his death in 1970. Recently I reread this book and was impressed by its passion and lucidity, but I couldn't help feeling that some of Russell's arguments were weak (no room to go into details) and I found myself confirmed in my own position that faith or belief and philosophy are 2 different things. I see why Russell is not a Christian from the ethical point of view, but neither he nor anyone else (unfortunately) can make any headway against belief in God because belief is not subject to the laws of logic or empirical reason. "Credo quia impossibile," Tertullian said-- "I believe BECAUSE it's impossible." We can fight Christianity on sound ethical grounds, but not on logical ones. Russell can defeat the ontological argument, but where does that get us? When he lists the evils that religion has perpetrated he is on much solider ground. Fr. Copleston, by the way (the debate between them is often printed in editions of this book), is an able debater (as many Jesuits are), an intelligent and committed opponent, but his arguments are just as facile as Russell's. In the end, though, you can't beat Russell for lucidity and conviction, so I'd recommend this book to anyone in the process of rethinking Christianity.
Rating:
Summary: Disappointed By Russell's Weak Challenge to Christianity
Review: I expected much more from someone known as a "firstrate" philosopher. Throughout his essays, Russell uses bad logicto support his conclusions. In his first essay alone, he uses a number of logical fallacies. For instance, when trying to defeat the first-cause argument for the existence of God, Russell states that God needs a cause. In doing so he commits the category fallacy. God, by definition is an Uncaused Cause. To question God's cause is like asking "Who caused that uncaused cause?" It's a bad question. Furthermore, Russell begs the question, commits the genetic fallacy by attacking the origin of a Christian's beliefs, and throws in a number of ad hominen attacks. One would expect sound logic from one of the world's most famous atheist. When dealing with Jesus of Nazareth, Russell states that it is doubtful whether Jesus even existed. However, he goes on to attack the character and teaching of Christ. Here's my question: Why spend time attacking Jesus' teachings and character if he did not exist? Instead, why not prove that Jesus did not exist? The answer is obvious--Russell has no such proof. Overall, the book is an example of the poor arguments "free-thinking rationalists," like Russell, use to attack Christianity and it exposes the lack of tough-minded intellectual rigor among atheists.
| 
