Does my heading catch your attention? Good. I’m not trying to be the shock jock of counter apologetics though, I’m merely stating things I see that people don’t comment on. Things that people are aware of, but that people refuse to really expose to their maximum potential.


Why is this topic not addressed much you might ask if it is such a big problem as I say?

a) Atheists might think it is petty name calling.

b) They think that they have to address philosophical issues such as unprovable things (existence of God, moral issues, intelligent design) and other irrelevant topics.

c) They really don’t see what the problem is WHICH IS BRAINWASHING!

d) The TOOLS (very fitting word) which is used to brainwash people to lies is of course THE BRAINWASHING LIARS.


Now let me expand on that further. When I say “LIARS” I am also fitting in “being manipulative misleading”.

– Does misleading people actually count as lying? Well no, but let me explain why I am including it into the topic of lying.

a) In order to be an effective liar you need to use certain techniques that help you to do so, being misleading is one of them.

b) I’m not even talking about “fallacies” either, which apologists are so famous for.

As shown here:

They really are great examples above by the way.

c) I’m talking about these things:

– Deflection.

– Saying they showed something that they didn’t really.

– Pretending that they actually are showing the anti-atheistic point when they aren’t.

– Passing off OPINIONS as facts, or someone else’s OPINION as fact who supports their view.


Well even though there was only one example above in 2c of actual lying (saying they said something that they never said) What do all the examples in 2c above have in common?

a) That the apologists are so smooth at doing everthing in 2c that sometimes unless you break it down in text and examine every paragraph, then you won’t be able to see what they are doing.

b) They are using all the techniques in 2c for LYING because it’s simply used to make them sound like they are making a point when they aren’t.

c) The whole topic, or title of the debate, or apologetic lecture that the apogists are doing, IS THE LIE versus the truth.

d) Since the lecture, or debate IS THE LIE, then all they have to do is establish the ILLUSION of winning and therefore passing off THE LIE.


I’m bringing this up because a couple days ago I witnessed a Twitter debate between a sleazy, dishonest and manipulative apologist who I know from experience does nothing, but deflect and avoid answering questions and he was debating a good Twitter Atheist allie and friend.

a) The mini-debate was regarding Ken Ham and his recent debate with Bill Nye.

b) The question was “does Ken Ham KNOW he’s lying?”

c) The answer is OF COURSE Ken Ham knows he’s lying.


Now how do we establish that Ken Ham is lying and actually believes what he is saying and promoting?

a) He’s not stupid by any means and I refuse to be biased to the man when listening to him, I heard nothing but a highly intelligent person.

b) If he didn’t think he had a snowballs chance of the debate, then he never would have done so.

c) He has had hands on experience observing all the same scientific things that Bill Nye demonstrated and was fully aware and familiar of everything that Bill Nye was saying.

d) The creation museum and Ken Ham’s money making empire DEPEND on people believing what he’s saying is true.

e) Ken Ham knows that people in his audience know nothing about science regarding evolution, geology, cosmology, chemistry and biology.

f) Ken Ham knows that the believers will only hear what they want to hear.

g) He has too much invested in his empire to ever admit that he doesn’t believe what he is saying.

h) He knows that what he does could never be considered fraud and that believers can either simply believe in an old Earth in a worse case scenerio, or still say that God was behind evolution.

h) The bottom line is this:

– That he knows science.

– He has a complete comprehension of how the science works.

– He has been shown the evidence.

– The science makes sense.

– He’s far too intelligent to believe what he actually claims to believe.

– There is no scientific evidence, that anything supernatural in the bible is real.

– Everything scientific, about the bible has been debunked regarding a young Earth, Adam and Eve and Noah and the flood.

– He makes a great living off of living off of a lie and pretending to believe it.

– Lying is worth every deflection, denial of facts and every argument from ignorance there is.

– Admitting to being aware he is lying and wrong would be career suicide.


As for non-creationists and apologists in general.

a) There isn’t an honest apologist out there.

b) There isn’t an apologist out there who isn’t a liar.

c) The only way that apologists can do what they do is by lying.

d) Apologists are by far the best liars in the world.

e) If apologists didn’t lie then they wouldn’t be able to do their job.

f) An apologist becomes an agnostic, or an Atheist when they don’t lie and they realize that there is no way they can do apologetics unless they do.


Here are some examples of apologists I’ve broken down:

Gary Habermas

William Lame Craig

Alister McGrath

Now when I say “liar” I mean the following:

a) Actually telling lies.

b) Saying you are saying something but you really aren’t.

c) Pretending you are actually saying something.


I now challenge anyone to send me an apologist lecture, or debate link that isn’t 7 a, b, or c and I will do a follow up to this and prove otherwise.


Finally….. a quote

“If you could reason with religious people then there would be no religious people.”

– House