The article, “Why I am Not A Christian,” by Bertrand Russell is first an opinion by himself in which he is trying to convince an audience with logic and evidence, reasons to reject Theist theories about the Bible. The questions he discusses and answers become clear throughout the speech as a conflict between science and religion. The discouraging part is that science can be proven as true or untrue. Science can be falsified, but religion has no way to be proven or unproven. The evidence does not exist with religion to prove certain facts. I do agree with certain aspects of Russell’s article, but not all of his debate. Russell’s definition of a Christian is absurd. His definition is his opinion. Read the Bible. He is totally out of realm with stating that the “full-blooded”…show more content… He jumps into the Natural-law argument and started about gravitation and Einstein. He retreats from this part because at the time of his speech, Einstein had not produced a full understanding of gravitation. Russell continues with the laws of nature and talks about statistical averages, which continue to produce no facts. He grapples with the design idea and that the world exists just because, and continues with criticizing the omnipotent power and what it has produced. Russell needs to understand that the humans that live on the design must have free will or otherwise automatons would be all that exists. He brutalizes the argument about justice in the world and other places. Justice is not amenable to science and his readings are merely opinion. I do agree with Russell that people are taught from early infancy about God and therefore they believe, but adults have the right to exercise free will. This was probably a way for Russell to reveal his own prejudice to an audience that was all