Most Christian Apologists Attacking Atheism are themselves Frauds!

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 DrPhil 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.

Views: 634


You need to be a member of Atheist Nexus to add comments!

Join Atheist Nexus

Comment by Dyslexic's DOG on January 30, 2015 at 7:52am

Here is Eric Hovind losing yet again.

Eric Hovind has evidently failed in trying to support Christianity through evidence, so being a failed apologist, he has done what all apologists do, in resorting to presuppositional argument for god.

The move to presuppositional apologetics, demonstrates he is in fact a liar.

Because such semantic games like presuppositionalism demonstrates that they have nothing to base their belief in god on.  Yes, they are admitting that they have no evidence for god by moving to presuppositional arguments.

Here is Eric Hovind's presuppositional argument and disingenuous style being exposed for the circular fallacious stupidity that it is.

Comment by Dyslexic's DOG on January 30, 2015 at 12:11am

Here is a sample of what they are telling very young children.

Fallacy after fallacy.

Children believing this are doomed to fail in critical thinking.

Comment by Dyslexic's DOG on January 29, 2015 at 11:15pm

Yes Michael, the debates and talks I've seen of David Wood, gave me the impression that he does believe in what he was stating at the time, even though it was fallacious nonsense.

I have a lot of acquaintances who honestly believe in similar nonsense to Wood, but, they don't mention it around me any more, as they don't like being belittled in public.

Something I have often accomplished when this region was overly theistic.

Even some claiming to be ex-atheist, yet, truly, they were only agnostic-theists, as they always held the belief that a god was possible, against all evidence.

Then they had a personal hallucination/revelation and one believed he saw the sacred heart of Jesus fall from his chest, onto the ground and shatter into a million pieces.

I don't know how he managed to count the pieces: :-D~

Though by the imagery, you would realize that he was raised in a Catholic family.

As only Catholics have depictions of Jesus with a ruby like heart attached to his chest.

He is one of my closest friends, but, he knows better than to describe his hallucination to me again, as I make him question it (how do you know it was really his actual heart and not just a jewel?, How could a mass of  muscle shatter? etc.. ), and that hurts him more than just stating it is stupid.


Comment by Michael Penn on January 29, 2015 at 2:21am

I watched a debate between David Wood, who claims he was once an atheist, and Heina Dadabhoy, a one time Muslim. Ms. Dadabhoy came off as almost brilliant in my mind while I didn't find Wood credible at all. I concluded that Wood is now a theist because he was not a credible atheist.

I'm a fairly new atheist but I make one bold claim. Religion is like the Wizard of Oz. Once you have seen behind the curtain you cannot believe in the Wizard any more.

Comment by Dyslexic's DOG on January 27, 2015 at 4:30pm

@ Bertold, 

Damn true and  an appropriate use of the term Faith.


Though it could also be said that I have Knowledge that they are lying.

Since disingenuity is objective evidence for lying.

Epistimologically speaking!

Comment by Dyslexic's DOG on January 27, 2015 at 7:44am

To prove they are lying, I need to prove that they don't believe in what they are saying, as if you believe what you say, even when what you say is total nonsense, as with those guys, then you are not lying, you are just misled.

Though if your approach demonstrates that what you understand more than you are pretending to do, or that you are deliberately avoiding things or arguments, that you know will sink your presentation, you are being disingenuous, this is so evident in every appearance those guys make and every debate they have with atheists.

Thus being continually disingenuous can only mean that they are indeed liars.

But, the last point is just making my blog appear tacky if I swap disingenuous for Liar.

As, again I haven't demonstrated lying.

Comment by Loren Miller on January 27, 2015 at 7:43am

The fact that they leave things out and omit nuance and context as regards scientific facts they cite is indisputable.  William Lane Craig was called on this recently in a debate in Australia:

When you can't check his facts, or he doesn't think that you know them, he will lie.
-- Lawrence Krauss (on William Lane Craig)

Indeed, Krauss preemptively called Craig on a great deal of his deceptive strategies IN HIS OPENING STATEMENT ... which effectively left WLC out in the wind to twist.  Being that Krauss is a highly qualified physicist, he is eminently qualified in knowing what science says and what it doesn't.  WLC can interpret the bible all he wants and the vagaries of such interpretations will always be problematic.

Most science (excepting very leading edge theoretical studies) have only ONE interpretation ... and while Craig is a "professional philosopher," he ain't no physicist!

Comment by Dyslexic's DOG on January 27, 2015 at 7:33am

Yes, Loren.

The Hovinds, Comfort, Strobel, Craig, Osborne, etc... are definitely professional liars.

Though, this assertion, even though totally true, cannot be proven by analyzing debates and public appearances.

So I can prove disingenuity, I cannot prove that they are deliberately lying, even though we are 100% certain that they are.

Comment by Loren Miller on January 27, 2015 at 7:05am

And I still prefer Mr. Boghossian's definition of faith:

Pretending to know something you don't know.

These guys cherry-pick facts and scientific developments the same way they pick-and-choose from the bible.  The result is that, to anyone who has an unedited view of science and the world, they all look exactly as dishonest as they are.  The problem is that, unlike a scientist who will discard a disproved hypothesis, they hang onto their old, vitiated arguments, indeed for dear life, because those are what they make their livings from.  Giving ground on any point used to discredit their position would be fatal, as it would burst their bubble of faith, and their considerable, fragile house of cards would collapse.

Calling the Hovinds, Cameron, Comfort, Craig and the rest "disingenuous" is the mildest criticism I could think of.  What they are in the end are professional liars.

Comment by Dyslexic's DOG on January 27, 2015 at 6:36am

Oh, I forgot to actually quote Dr. Smith's definition 8 of FAITH, so here it is:

"Believing in things others disbelieve and living in the light of those beliefs." by Dr. Phil Smith.

Essentially it is being honest to beliefs and holding them in disregard to the opposition of others.

I define that as Delusion, not Faith.

Yet, he Phil does paint a version that can be somewhat rational, but not entirely.

I suppose Copernicus after finding a little evidence that the universe was not geocentric, did have Faith in his notion.

Copernicus may not have had enough evidence originally to demonstrate that the earth moved around the Sun, it may have been just a suspicion that became a belief, thus Faith in the sun

 being the centre of our solar system.  As yet, it cannot be called Knowledge.

It was not until Galileo provided proof, that Copernicus's Faith became knowledge.

This only demonstrates that believing something that others disbelieve, on the very odd occasion, can be virtuous.

Other times the person believing something entirely irrational or abhorrent that others disagree with, may belong in a psychriatric hospital or a prison.


So Dr Smith is describing a faith that is extremely fuzzy, it can go between the extremes of, normal Skepticism to Insane Delusion.

Take your pick.




Update Your Membership :



Nexus on Social Media:

© 2020   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: The Nexus Group.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service