For a Text-to-Speech rendition of this webpage, see the audio player below:

Emotional Hook Example of 8/31/2003 Talk Show between Carrie Fisher and Bill Maher.

For example, many would agree with the sentiments expressed by Bill Maher and Carrie Fisher, when the latter hosted the former on her talk show, aired 8/31: Religion is evil. Yet they, like so many others (and me, too, back in my teens) equate religion, with Christianity. Oh? There are no other religions on the planet? Oh? Religion=belief in God=Christianity? See the flawed logic, there? See the cleverly false if A then B? If religion=belief in God and religion is stupid, then belief in God is stupid; so there is no God. Handy, huh. Note how cleverly Satan&Co. tell the truth that the only valid faith IS Christianity, yet BOND that truth to their own invention, religion; so, intellectuals the world over mindlessly equate the two AS A WEAPON to denigrate Christianity. It's an easy trap to fall into, and probably not one Christian, while still an intellectual unbeliever, would have escaped it. After all, in any supernatural movie you see, what denomination's name is portrayed as 'Christian', but Catholicism? As if that were the correct definition, and Biblical. Odd, how no one cares to question such bonding, huh. Rather, people just AGREE with it, so don't ever ask themselves, gee, what if God is the God of the Bible, but the way He and Bible are 'sold', are lies?

Both Maher and Fisher were commenting how ludicrous Christians were, to believe Christ was actually born on December 25th; Maher went on to note how ludicrous it was to believe that all the answers were in some book.. after all, this is 2003. His main point was that people shouldn't just cock up some story or book to explain things: what's wrong with just not knowing an answer? As you listen to them discuss these issues, you quickly realize they are reacting to people, to justify their disbelief in the Bible. Brilliant though both are, they like so many (all of us, at one time or another) use illogical premises:

• Just because religions the world over have predicted God taking on human form (a prophecy in the Bible since Gen3), doesn't mean that it couldn't/didn't/shouldn't happen. Here, the naysayers make the same mistake as so-called 'science', disregarding a HUGE database existing for millenia, simply because they don't like its message. Note the dead giveaway, subjective negative volition. Data is not 'objective', even if it is a huge collection of observations and beliefs, simply because it asserts God exists. For, only stupid people BELIEVE in God.
• Just because some people believe He was born on December 25 (Bible doesn't give a date), doesn't mean God doesn't exist or Bible is bad.
• Just because people are goofy, just because believers in a deity are goofy, doesn't mean there's no deity, nor does it mean THAT deity doesn't exist.
• God shouldn't write a book? The illogic here is pitifully patent. For, if God does exist, wouldn't it be more sensible to WRITE A BOOK, so that man needn't rely on experiences which could be considered hallucinatory? Wouldn't it be less strain on man's free will if God wrote a book man could choose to know, rather than IMPOSE Himself on man via spectacular display? LOL, we humans go wacko if some poor guy is running late for his plane, and we shut down the whole airport (LAX, year 2002) -- so any runner MUST be a terrorist! So, then: if we get so wacky over a runner, how well will our brains work if we had routine physical manifestations of Holy God? (Part III's Third Reason for Invisibility covers this topic in more detail.)

But oh, how proud they are of their anti-Christ conclusions! But ho, how proud we Christians are of our pro-Christ (so WE think) conclusions! Thus the irrelevancy-of-analysis goes unspotted, by BOTH sides. Safely. So of course, these two are just like the rest of us: none of us are immune from abusing logic. After all, the topic is God, and thus the sin nature in Adam MUST go dissociatively wacky in analysis.