Why I Am Not a Christian : And Other Essays on Religion and Related Subjects

Rating:
Summary: yes, i did read this book
Review: Let me firstly say that I am a muslim and i know how my religion has been blasted by many writers ( specially after 9-11). So i know how a person would feel if someone else tries to condemn your faith. For that alone, i give this book its lowest rating.
for a certain reviewer,Mr. Don Jordan ,I see you are not very happy about this book , but you gave this book titled "Prophet of Doom : Islam's Terrorist Dogma in Muhammad's Own Words" a rating of 5 stars. I hope you see how it irks when someone talks wrongly about your belief.

To anyone else reading this, just keep an open mind about stuff like this. Religion is a big word and instead of bringing people together, it sadly ends up becoming a barrier between people

Rating:
Summary: Excellent book
Review: I found Russell's essays about family and social issues more enlightening than the essays he wrote on religion. He is simply "preaching to the choir" in the essays focused on religion, and, as another reviewer has mentioned, his arguments against religion, particularly Christianity, would not be pursuasive to someone who embraced the faith on his or her own. I will disagree with Russell on one point: Russell asserts that religion can do nothing for mankind.I personally believe that if a non-superstitious form of Buddhism came to be adopted by the majority of the world's population, the world would be nicer place to live in. Although I do believe that religion is worthless, an individualistic, yet holistic, philosophy such as the philosophies underlying Buddhism, is beneficial. However, that is another subject.

The reviewer who called Russell's book "atheist drivel" should read the book again. The only statement Russell makes, if I'm correct, about atheism, is that there can be no positive conclusion about God's existence either way. That is what atheism is, simply having no positive belief in a monotheistic deity. If God wanted to be believed in, would he not make his/her existence manifest? (And don't you Theists pull that "God is manifest through his creation" crap either.)

What I found most compelling in the book is Russell's thoughts on raising children. It's no wonder they didn't allow him to teach. His ideas are progressive, and go against the grain even today. It's a shame that mankind has not progressed since the 1930s, and Russell might not even be allowed to teach in modern universities. Russell proposals that children should be told everything there is to know about sex, that we should satisfy their curiousity, and that it is more harmful to keep this information from children that it is to expose them to it. He even suggests that children should see their parents naked. I don't know about the efficacy of that claim either way. I suppose that there are arguments for and against this assertion.

In any event, this is not a book for right-wing reactionaries who want to maintain the status quo. And, by the way, Russell was not a Communist. He deplored Communism just as much as he deplored Christianity.

Rating:
Summary: reason over emotion
Review: With a name like `Why I Am Not a Christian' people are going to be flipping out right and left... most of whom have never even read so much as the first page of this book. Actually, this is not exactly a book but rather a collection of essays by Bertrand Russell nor is this collection as inflammatory as its slightly antagonistic title would suggest.

Although Russell should get some credit for taking a reasoned approach to these topic of God and religion which too often people approach with religion alone this is no homerun for the case of atheism. Russell raises some good points in regard to the conflicts of religion and reason but at times the strength of cretin arguments are mitigated by a lack of organization.

An unfortunate trend that has emerged though is that people who don't wish to deal with the issues raised by Russell latch on to the smallest details instead- finding the trees easier to deal with than the forest... (and there are some hum dingers in there like the supposition that prolonged virginity is not good for women) In such cases it should be kept in mind that this is not exactly a modern work-Ford was still making the Model T when his was written!- and over zealous Christians should be more cautious before opening that giant sized can of worms (umm... Galileo anyone?)

Regardless, the key to properly evaluating this work can be found in it's title, "Why I Am Not..." this book does not intend to (nor does it) seek to tell anyone else why they shouldn't be a Christian- while not overtly personal in it's tone this is a work detailing a personal view and should be judged as such and not by the standards of if it is a persuasive doctrine to convert others. Simple put the book is not `why you shouldn't be' it is simply `why I am not.'

Rating:
Summary: Good Collection
Review: This type of collection is very pertinant, especially with the rise of the religious right in the US, and Australia to power. Whilst they assert they are in the majority, that remains to be seen.
What is germaine in this area, is that few of the lay christians who fall under the rubric of "Neo-con" can answer Russell's arguments. In fact, try and ask the Christian Neo-cons about almost any of their social revisionist points, and they can rarely find a valid argument, and the end result, if you are lucky enough to find someone who will discuss things with you, is something like "...well... that is what I believe..", and at worst you run the risk of being physically harmed by some of these people. Just witness some of the reviews of books called "Liberal" when they hit too close to the mark.
Russell's line of thought is still worthy of examination, even if some of the key points have been challenged by some revisions in the pro-"Christian" side of the discussion.
Someone really should do a book "HOW TO TALK WITH A CONSERVATIVE: If you really Must".



Rating:
Summary: Don't listen to the crazies!
Review: There have been lots of emotional and (ambitiously) philosophical reviews of this book. I don't intend to turn this review into a review of the arguments for or against Christianity. This has occured in nearly every review I've read of this book. However, if you want an entertaining and frankly intelligent look at religion and its detractors, read this book. It's very well written and at least will provoke conversation if you leave it lying on your coffee table.

Rating:
Summary: A Very Poor Work For Such a Brilliant Man.
Review: I first encountered this same edition of "Why I Am Not a Christian" while attending college twenty years ago. At the time I thought, `Wow, the author of "Principia Mathematica" wrote an essay about why he's not a Christian. This should be good!' I always love having my faith challenged. After all, why bother believing in something that is demonstrably false? Unfortunately, this work ended up being a big disappointment.

It's an entertaining read, yet Bertrand Russell sounds more like the ranting village atheist than someone with legitimate philosophical objections. "Why I Am Not a Christian" will serve itself well for "preaching to the choir," but it is too weak to win any converts among those who have arrived at Christianity on their own.

If the reader of this review is genuinely interested in discovering the *real* reasons Bertrand Russell is not a Christian, then I strongly suggest you read his autobiography instead.

Rating:
Summary: A book to strengthen your faith
Review: I'll start by saying that I am a Christian (Please hold judgement). I grew up in the Evangelical church, but for 2 years now I have been in the process of "escaping" fundamentalism. I have learned to think for myself, and I now have a faith that is truely my own.

I agree with Russell. The god he rejects doesn't exist. But that doesn't negate faith. It just means that God is bigger than the box that religous fundamentalism tries to stuff him into.

I would recommend this book to every Christian. If it makes you doubt, then the faith you think you have isn't a faith worth holding on to anyway. At some point in time we all need to deconstruct God. The sooner the better in my opinion. Don't fear the truth. True faith is not a system of belief. It is a process of self discovery, and we need the help of others to discover our true selves.

For those of you trying to find a faith that doesn't bypass the intellect, I'd recommend the following books:

Finding Faith
A New Kind of Christian
The Heart of Christianity
The Courage to Be
Honest to God


Ultimately faith (or faithlessness) comes down to the the way you view the world around you. I like Albert Einstein's quote, "There are only two ways to live your life. One as though nothing is a miracle. The other is as though everything is a miracle." The choice is yours.



Rating:
Summary: Russell's Paradox
Review: The reason Russell was not a Christian is summed up well in "Russell's paradox", the most famous of the logical or set-theoretical paradoxes (He "discovered it in 1901.) The paradox arises within "set theory" by considering the "set" of all sets that are not members of themselves. Such a set appears to be a member of itself if and only if it is not a member of itself, hence the paradox.

The resolution of this Paradox is readily apparent when an actual example is presented. The most obvious "set" that fulfills the paradox is the "set" of "Christians."

For example, the Christians who pretend, by their own professions on Sunday morning, to believe (these people are the set of "believers") prove on Friday night, by the attendance at the strip club, that they are in fact not members of themselves, but are members of the "set of non-believers". With their mouth they claim to be in one "set" and by their actions they prove they are not a member of that "set".

Atheists will also quickly recognize that they are equally qualified to be a "set" that resolves Russell's Paradox. With their mouth they claim there is no Judgment and by their actions they demonstrate that they know there is one.

Yes, all men are liars to quiet their own conscience. Russell's Paradox requires a liar, so men fit into it just fine.

But Russell could not admit that. Hence he was unqualified to be a candidate for Grace were the conscience agrees with the just condemnation and finds peace in forgiveness.