Rating: 
Summary: Should be read with understanding
Review: Christians should read this in the same way that atheists and agnostics should read C.S. Lewis. To understand the other side of the issue.Russell is uncompromisingly agnostic. He approaches Christian and religious thought/dogma in an unbalanced way (i.e. he doesn't attempt to look at the good; just the bad).
I'm reminded of another atheist (Oscar Wilde) who said, "A cynic knows the price of everything and the value of nothing." Russell dwells on the fears and emotions that organized religion exploits in order to convince and maintain converts. While all but ignoring any good that comes from religious thought and traditions. But, if you are a Christian, and are confused about the fundamental problems that we atheists and agnostics have with your faith, this book puts them all out there in no uncertain terms. It serves as an excellent mouthpiece to address our key issues, but is very unfair in its value judgments of Christianity on the whole.
Rating: 
Summary: Great Reading for Christians
Review: One day I was happily paging through a light Peter Kreeft book when I came across this parenthetical aside: "Russell's essay ['Why I Am Not a Christian'], by the way, makes fine devotional reading for a Christian. My college roommate was about to lose his faith until he read it; he said to me, 'If those are the arguments against Christianity, I'd better be a Christian.'" "How about that?" I thought. "I must read this essay!" So I went to my university library and checked it out. As I read it, I could barely contain my laughter. Russell's "reasoning" is too ludicrous to be imagined. You must read it for yourself to appreciate how pathetic and lightweight Russell's essay really is. After that first reading, I simply had to buy my own copy so I could reread the essay any time I needed a good laugh. It still gives me the giggles ten years later! To my Christian brothers and sisters: I guarantee that Bertrand Russell's "Why I Am Not a Christian" will be one of the funniest and faith-affirming essays you ever read.
To my atheist friends: How does a man like Russell, who obviously doesn't read or understand the philosophical arguments he attempts to refute, become so famous a philosopher himself? It boggles the mind.
Rating: 
Summary: Not what the title advertises
Review: First, I acknowledge that my submitting this review up with only two stars will probably cost me so "votes," as others who have given similar reviews of Russell's book have paid the price. With this being said, I want to say that my reaction to this book can be best characterized by "disappointment." The title ("Why I am Not a Christian") is written in 60-point bold letters, with a 12-point subtitle ("and other essays on religion and related subjects"). Given the main title, I expected more of a polemic against Christianity. I bought the book with this expectation, which is a good reminder to never judge a book by its title. This is because, with the exception of several of the 15 essays, the title would have been more appropriately labeled "What I Believe" (which is the title of Russell's third essay) with the subtitle: "Reasons to Support Secular Humanism." The first essay ("Why I am not a Christian") takes up only 21 of the book's 266 pages. This is not even half as long as the appendix's 54 pages describing why Russell was not permitted to teach at the College of the City of New York. For a book with its title, I was hoping for more cogent and reasonable argumentation with validating evidence. This I was not given. I appreciate Russell's arguments, but they were not convincing. He also had a tendency to generalize and lump "Christians" into one category by making blanket statements. (For instance, he criticizes "Christians" for holding a negative view toward sex. I suppose he is aiming this barb at Catholicism's teaching that birth control is wrong. This certainly isn't true today; while it may have been truer during his day, this is still not a core reason proving Christianity to be false.) I believe that Russell's ideas from the essay "Why I Am Not a Christian" have been well answered over the past 45 years since the book was compiled in 1957. Russell attacks the first-cause argument (I recommend Craig's "The Kalam Argument" for a philosophical refutation), the natural law argument, the argument from design (an atheist in a recent debate whom I observed used Russell's line of logic--Russell's ideas certainly haven't faded away many years later!), and the moral argument, among others. However, no documentation is given except for Russell's ideas. In fact, there is very little development in the writing as Russell attempts to refute evidence in support of the existence of God. Again, I realize many atheists will be reading my review, so let me add one more thing. I truly could/would have been more generous with my rating if the book delivered what the title promised. Yet it did not. As far as Christian refutations to Russell's first essay, I recommend "When Skeptics Ask" by Norman Geisler and Thomas Howe; "Reasonable Faith" by William Lane Craig; and "Handbook of Christian Apologetics" by Peter Kreeft. Otherwise, for those who have not already made up their minds, I think you also may be disappointed by this book.
Rating:
Summary: "Unfortunate are those born before there time, for they...
Review: ...are bound to suffer!" Socrates faced death sentence, and Galileo faced the wrath of the Cardinals of the holy office, because they were born in the wrong time! One feel strongly that Bertrand Arthur Russell was also a victim of poorly timing his birth, after reading his essays like 'Our Sexual Ethics' or the writings about children in numerous places. For example consider the line: "Many children have bad habits which are perpetuated by punishment but will probably pass away of themselves if left unnoticed. Nevertheless, nurses, with very few exceptions, consider it right to inflict punishment, although by so doing they run the risk of causing insanity." - with the exception of the writing style, this sentence may be quite comfortable between pages of a modern book on parenting or child psychology. Most importantly, they look from a very much humanitarian point of view at fundamental problems of our society, in today's terms (you have to ignore the emotional retorts of various religious groups). However, speaking his mind fearlessly in a wrong period, continuously led Bertrand Russell into trouble! WHY I AM NOT A CHRISTIAN is a truly great book, and the ideas are still quite valid for today. The title may offend many with strong religious convictions and so will be most of the content. However, it is very hard to argue against many of Russell's opinions. For example consider the following about sexual education: "A person is much less likely to act wisely when he is ignorant than when he is instructed,.. Every boy is interested in trains. Suppose we told him that an interest in trains is wicked... suppose we never allowed the word "train" to be mentioned in his presence and preserved an impenetrable mystery as to the means by which he is transported from one place to another. The result would not be that he would cease to be interested in trains; on the contrary, he would become more interested than ever but would have a morbid sense of sin, because this interest had been represented to him as improper... This is precisely what is done in the matter of sex; but, as sex is more interesting than trains, the results are worse." Most of the articles of this book have strong 'anti-religious' tone. Since most of the examples are drawn from Christianity, one may feel that it is an attack against Christianity. However, the reader who is patient enough to read it through before forming an opinion may find that his is just telling the truth. Most of the criticisms are equally valid for other religious cultures.
Rating:
Summary: a rubbishy defense of atheism
Review: i'm a practicing Catholic, but i still enjoy a good solid argument for atheism whenever i can find one. i found russell's book to be practically worthless in this respect. every single point he brings forth as an argument against Christianity, or, more generally, organized religion, has been answered several times over. furthermore, he had no knowledge whatever, and apparently no desire to know of, Christianity as an historical reality; hence his ridiculous exegesis of the Sermon on the Mount, and his comment that Christ probably never lived. i was truly shocked, because i know what a great analytic philosopher russell was, but in all seriousness, a Christian doesn't even need to do any serious homework to take russell to the cleaners here. cs lewis, in his less stellar moments, cleans his clock.
the only strong point of the book is Russell's vibrant and, at times almost clever, writing style. other than that, this book does a poor job of arguing for atheism. adios and God bless.
Rating:
Summary: Burning strawmen
Review: As mathematician,Russell was a giant.As philosopher,he was quite the hack.After Wittgenstein shredded Russell's philosophical systems in the 1910's,he afterword became more polemicist than philosopher.Anyway,what this book highlights above all else is how even a man of genius can be blind to himself.Russell puts out a hit on every Christian strawman he found and generally scorned religion as such.But just like Shaw,Heidegger and other men of the age,he found a substitute religion in the form of Utopian movements as exemplified by Communism,Socialism etc.It is rather amusing when people like Russell clain no religion,conveniently blind to the fact that all people have a religion whether they know it or not.Skip this two-bit hack and read some Nietzsche.
Rating:
Summary: Read this book if no other
Review: Life is short, so why not read something important? This is an important book. The world would be a better place if the ideas contained within it were put into practice. If you have never read Russell, you are in for a treat. Enjoy.
Rating:
Summary: A rating of 5 stars and 1 star
Review: 5 stars for Russell brillant arguements, 1 star for his single dimensional analysis on the topic. Am a practising Buddhist who is very curious in the similiarties of the Teachings by Jesus Christ. Yes, there are many similarities and differences as I have discovered and is still an ongoing research topic for me. I respect and admire Russell's sophisticated and analytical mind plato.stanford.edu/entries/russell/ and in this case, he have chose to focus on the differences aspects. I fear that many non-Christians would likely to mis-use his single dimension works for their own purposes while upsetting the Christian community. Indeed, the New Testament is consist of the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and Paul. Jesus first twelve disciples were Peter, Andrew, James, John, Philip, Matthew, Nathaniel, James (son of Alphaeus), Thadeus (Judas), Simon, Thomas and Judas Iscariot (who later betrayed Jesus). Noticed that Mark, Luke and Paul are not among the first twelve disciples, not sure if Matthew is the same as Jesus 6th disciple. I have read that Paul added in additional teachings of Jesus that were not from Jesus himself? As such, to critically assess the teachings of Jesus, one need to distill what's his original Teachings from what's is being perceived by his subsequent disciples. Moreover, through transcription and translation by men, the chances of errors and inclusion of personal teachings into the original writings are there. To date, I have yet to discover a reliable source of publication(s) regarding the original teachings of Jesus and if you know of any potential source, I would very much appreciate that you could pass me the reference for that so that I can further investigate from thereon. I've chose to focus on the similarities, ie. the compassionate and loving-kindness aspects of Teachings from Jesus Christ and from the Dharma, with an open mind. Cheers, Rex
Rating:
Summary: A rating of 5 stars and 1 star
Review: 5 stars for Russell brillant arguments, 1 star for his single dimensional analysis on the topic. Am a practising Buddhist who is very curious in the similiarties of the Teachings by Jesus Christ. Yes, there are many similarities and differences as I have discovered along the way and is still an ongoing spiritual learning experience for me. I respect and admire Russell's sophisticated and analytical mind ... and in this case, he have chose to focus on the differences. I fear that many non-Christians would likely to mis-use his single dimension works for their own purposes while upsetting the Christian community. Indeed, the New Testament is consist of the Four Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John), Epistle (traditionally ascribed to Paul) and The Apocalypse. Jesus first twelve disciples were Peter, Andrew, James, John, Philip, Matthew, Nathaniel, James (son of Alphaeus), Thadeus (Judas), Simon, Thomas and Judas Iscariot (who later betrayed Jesus). Noticed that Mark and Luke are not among the first twelve disciples, not sure if Matthew is the same as Jesus 6th disciple. I have read that Paul added in additional teachings of Jesus that were not from Jesus himself? As such, to critically assess the teachings of Jesus, one need to distill what's his original Teachings from what's is being perceived by his subsequent disciples. Moreover, through transcription and translation by men, the chances of errors and inclusion of personal teachings into the original writings are there. To date, I have yet to discover a reliable source of publication(s) regarding the original teachings of Jesus and if you know of any potential source, I would very much appreciate that you could pass me the reference for that so that I can further understand Jesus, whom I consider as my Spiritual Master as well. I've chose to focus on the similarities, ie. the compassionate and loving-kindness aspects of Teachings from Jesus Christ and from the Dharma, with an open mind...
Rating: 
Summary: Good, but uneven
Review: This is not actually a book originally conceived and written by Bertrand Russell, but a collection of his essays put together by an independent editor. As a result, the content and quality of the essays varies considerably. It's a brilliant book, but might have been done better.
| 
