Analysing debates between Christian apologists and Atheists has led me to the conclusion that the vast majority of Christian apologists who do such attacking of Atheism in public, demonstrate quite clearly their disingenuous belief system by the nature of and the fallacies within their arguments.
These disingenous people are really simply using religion to print money.
Those that are clearly disingenuous, are: Ray Comfort, Kirk Cameron, Kent Hovind, Eric Hovind, Ken Ham, William Lane Craig, John Lennox, Dinesh D'Souza, Lee Strobel, Bryan Osborne and Sye Ten Bruggencate.
Ray Comfort is the perfect example of disingenuity, in that he continually pretends to know little about things he attacks. He will claim to know little about Darwin yet in the book he circulated he writes a very concise account concerning aspects of Darwin's life. So he gets off deliberately playing an innocent and naive seeker of truth. Thus being totally disingenuous.
Cameron is bathing in the income from Comfort and is equally disingenuous.
Dinesh and Sye pretend to know nothing about rational reason when they assert their Presuppositional Arguments, that rationality destroy, because Presuppositionalism is an irrational tautology that every honest Christian dislikes. Thus proving that they too are disingenuous, or frauds.
William Lane Craig and John Lennox pretend to not understand that evidence through personal experience is entirely non-evidence for anything, especially a deity.
They blankly assert that such evidence is above and beyond empirical evidence then deny others who have the same personal experiences in other religions as being valid. Such hypocrisy is evidence that they are disingenuous and simply pushing propaganda for money.
The Hovinds and Strobel have stuck to the same denials since Eric's Daddy (Kent) was making a pile of money from pushing those denials, before he was jailed. Strobel has simply borrowed those same claims and deliberate ignorance for himself, as pushing propaganda to the naive pays better than poor journalism.
I've watched their television shows and debates, along with Eric's so called educational videos, ROFL,
Because their arguments are disingenuous.
Their counter claims against atheists show that they have developed sets of spiels to cover every argument they think evolutionists and atheists would use. The silence and stunned expressions they produce when atheists produce arguments they hadn't prepared a spiel for is so evident that they are disingenuous. To prepare such spiels, shows that they have studied the arguments from the other side, and meticulously created arguments to either counter the opposition of obfuscate the subject.
Another sign of disingenuous people is when they need to continually create straw man arguments.
Lennox and Craig, always cite personal encounters with straw men as proof of their ability to convince and convert atheists, especially Lennox, who starts every appearance (talks and debates) with such fictitious fables (proving his disingenuity and fraudulent nature).
Comfort, The Hovinds, Strobel and all Young Earth Creationists have a plethora of straw man arguments, it seems some times that straw man arguments is all they have.
Thus, it is so evident that all Young Earth Creationist leaders, apologists and authors are entirely disingenuous.
On the other hand, there are some Christtian apologists, who are genuine in their representation of their beliefs and hold up well against their arguments atheists, yet, they do not go out and attack atheism, but, will debate when asked to do so.
Those who I find genuine (less fallacious) and I actually enjoy listening to their arguments, which are often original and not the same old garden variety stupidity that we get from those I've already named.
Some of those genuine apologists who appear to actually believe in their religion are:
Jason Burns, David Wood and Dr. Phil Smith of George Fox University.
Of those genuine Apologists, I particularly like Dr. Phil Smith's definition of Faith.
Quite often we consider Faith by the following definitions: from Peter Boghossian.
1: Belief without Evidence.
2: Pretending to know things you really don't.
While Theists usually try to claim it means having absolute trust in somebody (god) or something (god).
Which begs the question, of by what evidence do they base their absolute trust in god from.
Which becomes belief without evidence.
Yet, I agree with Dr. Phil Smith's concept of Faith can be a virtue by his definition.
Faith: Having a strong belief that disagrees with others within your epistimological group.
Here is Dr. Smith giving 8 definitions of Faith.
He keeps the Virtuous Faith last.
I've started this video at Faith Definition 5 as Dr. Smith has some interesting things to state.
Thin and thick faith? LOL.
Though the entire talk is quite interesting, he makes many good points.
I would describe this virtuous faith of Dr. Phil Smith's, as having faith in a personal hypothesis.
Such as a scientist who disagrees with other scientists in that he has faith that his hypothesis is correct.
Though unlike Rupert Sheldrake with his undying faith in his Morphonic Resonance argument, as it never made it to being a hypothesis, since a hypothesis does need evidence, yet, after being destroyed, Sheldrake still pushes his hypothesis as truth. Sheldrake has absolute faith in Morphonic Resonance, for which he may consider he has valid evidence for, yet others in his field consider it pseudoscience.
Yet, it did produce some unusual experiments and prodded some scientists to look at the possibilities of such phenomenon, even though it is somewhat irrational.
Anything that creates controversy in science is beneficial, even those claims that ultimately prove themselves as nonsense.
So Dr. Phil Smith's idea of virtuous faith is demonstrable in a scientist who disagrees with other scientists in that he has faith that his hypothesis is correct.
Even though the scientist may be wrong (as Sheldrake was), their disagreement generates an abstract or original line of enquiry which helps science stay fresh and skeptical, thus in my books, that is a virtue.
Also it is such faith that allowed the discovery of plate tectonics.
So this is the only time that Faith can be virtuous.
But: and that is a big BUT!
This has nothing to do with Religious Faith!
Since those who hold such faith in a hypothesis, often have some validated evidence for forming their hypothesis, like continents appear have moved in the past.
Those adhering to religious faith are not basing their faith on validated evidence, only on a personal experience or others ideas that they did not apply any critical thinking to.
So my definition of Religious Faith is: Believing strongly in that which ignores and defies critical analysis.
Virtuous Faith as that highlighted by Dr. Smith, invites and encourages critical analysis.
If it was not for that faith, science would likely have stagnated.
I never thought of it that way, until I watched Dr. Smith giving his presentation to Dr. Peter Boghossian's class.
This is the first time in a long while that arguments from a Theist actually made sense to moi.
Phil Smith has changed the way I look at Faith.
He has also changed the way I view philosophers and Christian apologists.
I used to think they were all loony losers in the intelligence race.
I now realize that some of them are extremely intelligent and have thoughtful positions beyond my general reasoning framework.
Though, as in this case, the reasoning is not based on religion, but a deeper understanding of the meanings of terms like faith.
Phil's reasoning behind his religious beliefs are likely not so impressive.
Possibly boil down to the same old fallacious reasoning that most Christians assert.
I should thank him for such a thought provoking discussion.