The full essay can be found here: http://www.users.drew.edu/~jlenz/whynot.html
It was also delivered as a lecture on March 6, 1927, at Battersea Town Hall under the auspices of the South London Branch of that National Secular Society.
Russell defines the term Christian and then sets out as to why he does not "believe in God and in immortality" and why he didn't believe "that Christ was the best and wisest of men". These are the two things he identifies as "essential to anybody calling himself a Christian".
He then logically considers a number of arguments for the existence of God including the cosmological argument, the natural-law argument, the teleological argument and moral arguments following what he describes as "the intellectual descent that the Theists have made in their argumentations".
The Independent newspaper claimed it as being "devastating in its use of cold logic" and is listed in the NY Public Library's list of the most influential books of the 20th century.
Do you find his arguments convincing? What problems can you identify with his logical reasoning?
You can listen to the lecture in full here: