The entire point of an apologist is to make up believable sounding evidence when no actual evidence exists. If their claims were factual then we would only need scientists and historians to provide evidence. Hence why we don’t have “spherical Earth” apologists, only “flat Earth” apologists.
Everything You Need to Know AboutChristian Apologists
1Apologists would not exist if their claims were true.
2Why would apologist deliberately lie and take advantage of people?
For your average apologists, the answer is commonly denial. They are trying to convince themselves as much as they are trying to convince you. For the bigger name apologists, the answer is money. They make a cushy living selling books that tell eager fans what they want to hear. Josh McDowell has a net worth of $600,000 thanks to his “Evidence” book series. If you are an apologist who preaches at your own church then you can get filthy rich. Benny Hinn, Chris Oyakhilome, and Joel Osteen each have a net worth between $45 million and $55 million.
3When their lies are publicly exposed, they lie more instead of admitting they were wrong.
Ray Comfort became famous for saying bananas are proof that God exists. His reasoning is that they are perfectly designed specifically for humans. Stating that they are perfectly shaped for human hands, curved towards our mouths, have a tab like a soda can, and a biodegradable wrapper with color indicators. However, he made a few mistakes about bananas, most notable is that modern bananas are man-made. Wild bananas are very different and filled with seeds.
Not to mention, by his “logic,” pineapples would be evidence that God does not exist.
In a follow-up Ray said, “My apologies for not explaining myself more clearly. I was not aware that the common banana had been so modified by hybridization…” He admits he didn’t fact check but puts the blame on people not understanding him clearly.
He goes on to change his argument to claim that man’s knowledge of how to modify bananas is proof that God exists. This is a claim with no evidence. Ray’s solution to not having valid evidence to support his claims is to stop providing evidence, but still make said claims.
Shortly after he released a new statement. Here he says everyone who believed the evidence against him is gullible, denying he believed it too. He now claims the earliest bananas were shaped like modern ones, because banana is Arabic for “finger”. He ignores the fact that bananas were cultivated 8,000 years ago and didn’t get their Arabic name until after they were introduced to Palestine in 650 AD. Ray also claims we can’t know what wild bananas look like since we don’t have 8,000-year-old photos. Ignoring the fact that we still have wild bananas today.
4Many apologists openly admit that they are being dishonest.
The key to being honest is to be open-minded, having a willingness to admit when you are wrong. Many apologists claim they a right, no matter what the evidence says. When asked, “What, if anything, would ever change your mind?” the man behind answersingensis.com, Ken Ham, replied, “No, no one is ever going to convince me that the word of god is not true.”
In July of 2011, apologist Josh McDowell, spoke at the event “Unshakable Truth, Relevant Faith.” Just the name of the event, which they charged $199 a ticket for, admits how close-minded they are. There, Josh identified the “abundance of knowledge, the abundance of information” on the internet as the greatest threat to Christianity.
5They con you into feeling guilty, substituting the lack of evidence with emotions.
Emotions are important but people commonly don’t think clearly when emotions are involved. Apologists, and preachers, take advantage of this. When there is no convincing argument for their claims, they con you with emotional guilt. Take for example the “Are You A Good Person” propaganda from Living Waters. They guilt you into feeling like you are a horrible person, by labeling you as a liar, thief, and an adulteress. In reality, if you lied once you are not a liar, that is not a defining characteristic. If someone played basketball once we would not identify them as a basketball player.
6They will even use fear to con you into following their word.
Apologists sometimes substitute fear for the lack of evidence. They aim to make you afraid to disagree with them. Hell is a common example, but some others claim that Hitler’s actions were the result of atheism. Apologists try suggesting that if you don’t believe in God, you are no better than Hitler. Ironically, Hitler personally said his actions were based on a faith in Jesus and God. Either way, fear is never an honest reason to believe something is true.
Hitler and his army has been regularly photographed attending church services and alongside religious leaders. Many Nazi soldiers even had “Gott Mit Uns” (“God With Us”) on their uniforms. As Hitler stated several times, he was only doing what he believed was right in accordance with the Christian Bible.
“Therefore, I am convinced that I am acting as the agent of our Creator. By fighting off the Jews. I am doing the Lord’s work.“
– Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf
“Christ was the greatest early fighter in the battle against the world enemy, the Jews… The work that Christ started but could not finish, I–Adolf Hitler–will conclude.“
– Adolf Hitler, Nazi Christmas celebration 1926
“I believe today that I am acting in the sense of the Almighty Creator. By warding off the Jews, I am fighting for the Lord’s work.”
– Adolf Hitler, Reichstag speech 1938
“The judgment whether a people is virtuous or not virtuous can hardly be passed by a human being. That should be left to God.”
– Adolf Hitler, Wilhelmshaven speech 1939
Adolf Hitler despised orthodox Christianity, feeling they were a mockery to scripture. According to the book “Hitler’s Table Talk” by H.R. Trevor-Roper Hitler said, “Christianity is an invention of sick brains: one could imagine nothing more senseless, nor any more indecent way of turning the idea of the Godhead into a mockery…” Hitler despised Christianity so much that he even started his own Jesus centered religion called “Positive Christianity,” that he felt followed the Bible much closer.
Hitler’s list of banned books in Nazi Germany were any books that belittled faith in Jesus Christ or any books that supported the claims by Charles Darwin. The following two passages are from the list of books to be banned in Nazi Germany.
“6. Writings of a philosophical and social nature whose content deals with the false scientific enlightenment of primitive Darwinism and Monism (Haeckel).”
– Guidelines from Die Bucherei 2:6 (1935), page 279.
(Source: Strothman, pp. 143-144)
“c) All writings that ridicule, belittle or besmirch the Christian religion and its institution, faith in God, or other things that are holy to the healthy sentiments of the Volk.”
– Blacklist for Public Libraries and Commercial Lending Libraries
Fighting League for German Culture: Guidelines
(Source: Stadtbibliothek Koblenz, 1993; pp. 5-7)
7The following apologetic claims for God exist only because evidence does not.
Below are the most common claims, made by Christian Apologists, for the existence of their God. Expand each one to see how blatantly false and dishonest they really are.
Space & time had a starting point so there must have been a creator who must have been God.
Time is simply the measurement of movement and the increments of such measurement (e.g. minutes, hours, days) are based on how long it takes for Earth to move around the sun. During the Big Bang is when everything in our universe was set into motion making the start of motion and thus the start of time in our universe. Space, on the other hand, is in simplest terms the area within a container. Prior to the Big Bang, our entire universe was condensed into a tiny fireball but then that ball rapidly expanded creating space within it. When scientists talk about the start of time & space they are talking about the start of movement and the formation of space within only our universe, not the start of all time & space. The Big Bang that created our universe is believed to be just one of many Big Bangs that each created separate universes containing time & space.
Just because something was created does not mean it was supernaturally created.
The theory of probability proves that the odds are too high for the universe to be the way it is without God.
This is a false use of the Theory Of Probability. This “argument” is based on the invalid assumption that life, the way it is, was the pre-determined targeted outcome.
Consider this; the mathematical odds of dealing a hand of thirteen specified cards from a well-shuffled deck of fifty-two playing cards are about 635,000,000,000 to one. If a person calls out thirteen specific cards ahead of time and then those specific cards are dealt, one could claim that was likely too improbable to happen naturally. However, if the cards are already dealt and made known before the person calls out the thirteen specific cards there is no reason to suggest that the selection of the cards required any special guidance.
Life is so complex that it had to be intelligently designed by a conscious creator.
Yes, life is complex but that does not mean it had a conscious designer. A snowflake is complex and it does not require a conscious designer.
Life is actually overly complex with far too many unnecessary parts assembled in such a frantic mess that causes a wide range of faulty design flaws from avoidable limitations to cancer-causing agencies. The over-complexity shows that life certainly was not designed by a conscious being with the ability to plan ahead or work efficiently.
The complexity of life has already been well explained by science through natural means.
Life is designed so there must have been a god that design it.
Life was designed, but not by God. Just as we once assumed that lightning thrown down from a cloud had to have a conscious being doing the throwing we also assumed that the apparent design of life had to have a conscious being doing the designing. Life was designed, and indeed has a designer, but not a conscious one. The designer of life is nature and its method for fine-tuning life is a process known as Natural Selection, not conscious decision making.
We already know how life was designed through natural means. In order to understand how life could have and was designed through natural means, you first must understand the basic mechanics and principles of evolution along with the observable and known evidence which the explanation, or “theory,” of evolution is based upon.
Earth was made perfectly for life. Its distance from the sun and the tilt of its axis are just right for us to live.
The planet Earth is far from being perfect for life and throughout life’s history, there has been a vicious battle against nature to survive. Life has gone through many mass extinctions, some even bigger than the mass extinction that devastated the end of the Cretaceous period.
Just because life can exist on Earth does not mean that it was designed for life. Your shower is an ideal setting for fungus to grow but it obviously was not designed for the inhabitance of fungus. Life was a side effect of the conditions of Earth, not the other way around.
Although Earth is the only planet in our solar system known to naturally sustain human life it is by no means the only planet in our universe that is capable of doing so. There are over one hundred billion galaxies in the known universe, each of which could potentially contain hundreds or even billions of separate solar systems. In light of this relatively modern knowledge, the number of potential Earth-like planets such as “Gliese 581 C” which could harbor life is, to say the least, dramatically and unbelievably high. The odds of known life forming on just one of those planets is suddenly less impressive.
Scientists call DNA the “language of life” and all languages and codes must have been created by a conscious being.
DNA has been nicknamed “The Language Of Life” because it is like a language. Although DNA has many similarities to language and code it also has many differences and is not subject to the same limitations.
We also know different ways of how DNA and its predecessor RNA could have simply formed by natural means so saying DNA could not have formed without a conscious creator only proves a failure to keep up to date with the modern knowledge of DNA.
Something can’t come from nothing.
When physicists say there was “nothing” before the Big Bang of our universe they do not mean literally nothing. What they mean is that there was no matter, just energy. It was that energy which formed matter and the Big Bang.
If you are claiming that the universe had to have a creator because “something can’t come from nothing” then you would also be claiming that that creator had to have a creator too, and so on.
People talk to God all the time, how could anyone talk to someone if that being did not exist?
Many credit the voice in their head as the voice of God. That voice, however, is just unfiltered thought. It is the same “voice” that speaks when people talk to other gods or when children talk to their imaginary friends.
If one actually convinces themselves that the voice in their head is “evidence” for God then they must also believe in most other gods and every imaginary friend ever conceived by a child.
Also, if God existed why would his communication abilities be limited to the same level as imaginary friends? In the Bible, God speaks aloud, either projected from a bush, through the mouth of a donkey, or even face to face.
People have been healed after people prayed for them, leaving doctors baffled. This proves that God exists and supernaturally heals people.
There have been cases where a doctor was sure that a person could not recover, then after people prayed the patient did in fact recover. However the same has happened for those who were not prayed for. The opposite has also happened to people. The doctor was sure they would recover then the patient takes a fatal turn for the worse, even when prayed for. What is really going on is that the doctors were simply wrong. Even doctors make mistakes.
People of all theistic religions are convinced that praying to their god or gods has caused people to be healed. Regardless there has never been any documentation to support such claims. There has never been imagery of structural changes to an eye as it was supposedly cured of blindness by a god. And there has never been evidence supporting any other supernatural case.
The existence of God is not provable or testable so we can't be expected to provide evidence for our belief in him.
If this was the case then it is very dishonest for anyone to say they believe that a god exists.
The existence of God is actually testable and provable. The definition of a god does include a being that resides “outside of the natural world” which is a realm that is not testable. However, the definition also includes interactions with the natural world and it is those interactions that are testable and provable or disprovable.
God is nature, he is the energy all around us, and everyone agrees that those things exist so therefore God exists.
By calling God something else, something that is proven to exist, does not mean that God exists. Saying that “Bigfoot is nature” or that “Bigfoot is energy” does not prove the existence of Bigfoot despite the proven existence of nature and energy. God is not nature, just as nature is not a supernatural being.
God can't prove he exists because of freewill.
If God proved his existence by making a public appearance or performing supernatural acts that break any of the well-known laws/limitations of nature, this would not affect our freedom to love him. Only after his existence is solidly proven is one free to honestly decide if they wish to worship or love God. One might argue that people will just falsely worship God for the sake of going to Heaven but isn’t God said to be able to tell if a person is being honest or not?
In the Bible, we are told on countless occasions that God proves his existence. Only in real life, outside of the stories, is he non-existent.
8The following apologetic claims for Jesus Christ exist only because evidence does not.
Below are the most common claims, made by Christian Apologists, for the existence of Jesus Christ. Most of them are arbitrary non-contemporary writings. The only one that cites its sources, like any valid historical writing does, cites religious scriptures as their only source… since it is a writing about the history of religious belief, not actual history.
The Jewish historian Josephus, who lived close to the time when Jesus is said to have lived, mentions Jesus twice in his Antiquities of the Jews.
The Antiquities of the Jews is not based on historical events. Right in the preface Josephus specifically tells us that the history he is writing about is based on Hebrew scriptures and religious books.
“Now I have undertaken the present work, as thinking it will appear to all the Greeks worthy of their study; for it will contain all our antiquities, and the constitution of our government, as interpreted out of the Hebrew Scriptures.” “I shall now betake myself to the history before me, after I have first mentioned what Moses says of the creation of the world, which I find described in the sacred books after the manner following.” – Antiquities of the Jews — Preface
Josephus also describes God’s creation of the earth, Adam & Eve, Noah & the flood, the Tower of Babel, the 10 Plagues, the parting of the sea, and other Jewish folklore in his Antiquities of the Jews. Again, Josephus cites religious books as his only sources.
Josephus was not even born until 37 CE.
Antiquities of the Jews was not written until 94 CE.
Josephus was an orthodox Jew and never believed in a savior named Jesus Christ.
Lucian of Samosata does not mention Jesus by name but refers to him, his crucifixion, and his followers in "The Passing of Peregrinus."
The Passing of Peregrinus is not a documentation of historical events. It is a satire and work of fiction, by the play writer Lucian, in which the lead character takes advantage of the generosity of the Christian religious group.
The reference to Jesus is only describing what Christians of the time believe in. It is not, by any means, suggesting that those beliefs were true.
Lucian was not born until 125 CE.
In “Annals XV.44” Publius Cornelius Tacitus writes about a man named “Christus” who founded Christianity and suffered at the hands of Pontius Pilatus.
The reference to Jesus is only describing what Christians of the time believe in. It is not, by any means, suggesting that those beliefs were true.
Immediately after describing the beliefs of Christians (e.g. Christus suffering at the hands of Pontius Pilatus) Tacitus then calls those beliefs a “most mischievous superstition.”
Tacitus was not born until 56 CE.
Annals XV.44 was not written until 115 CE.
Chapter 25 of a biography titled "The Life of Claudius" has one line that states, "As the Jews were making constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he expelled them from Rome."
There is nothing to suggest that “Chrestus” is a reference to the Christ referred to as Jesus.
This passage is set during 50 CE, twenty years after Jesus’ supposed death.
Suetonius was not born until 41 CE.
“The Life of Claudius” was not written until 115 CE.
Pliny the Younger talks about Christians in his writings while corresponding with the emperor Trajan.
The writings are only claiming that there were Christians in Asia Minor around 100CE. This is not something that is doubted.
Pliny only describes what Christians of the time believed in. It is not, by any means, suggesting that those beliefs were true.
Pliny the Younger was not born until 61 CE.
Most historians agree that a figure dubbed “Historical Jesus” existed. That must mean Jesus Christ existed.
The figure that historians called “Historical Jesus” is not a reference to the figure Jesus Christ. Although Jesus was not originally based on a real person some later aspects were. Certain stories in the Gospels suggest that some aspects of Jesus’ life were loosely inspired by legends of an actual person or persons. Historians have dubbed this person(s) “Historical Jesus” because an actual name is not known. Outside of scripture, there is nothing to suggest that this person(s) existed but certain scriptural writings about Jesus, such as the resurrection story, sound more like they were based on a real-life regular human being than a demi-god figure.
Historically speaking Jesus was very influential. Christians have even died in his name, something they would not have done if Jesus wasn't real.
Just because a figure is influential does not suggest they existed, all mythological gods were very influential. And, historically speaking, it is the stories of Jesus that have been influential, not the figure himself.
The existence of Christian martyrs doesn’t prove that Jesus was real, it only proves that people were convinced that Jesus was real. Martyrdom is not limited to just Christianity, it has been abundant in various religious groups around the world. People have also been martyrs for the promises of 72 virgins in paradise and stories of a spacecraft trailing comet Hale-Bopp.
We cannot expect to find evidence for anyone who lived that long ago because they did not have cameras or the internet. There is no evidence for Alexander the Great either.
The 1st century was a well documented time and we have a great deal of historical evidence for figures, eg. Julius Caesar, who actually existed.
Even if it were true, that we could not prove the existence of anyone from that era in time, then this would mean that Jesus’ existence is not provable and thus there are no honest reasons to believe to he existed.
Even though Alexander the Great lived over 300 years before Jesus’ supposed lifetime there is still a great deal of evidence for his life that we don’t find for Jesus. First off there is actually contemporary evidence such as the silver decadrachm coins (on display at the British Museum) bearing his name that was issued during his reign. There are also many cities named after him, some of which were formed by him during his lifetime, eg. Alexandria in Egypt.
Although the most complete and well-known biography of Alexander was written, by Arrian of Nicomedia, 400 years after his death it was written with references to contemporary biographies from people such as Callisthenes and Ptolemy. Both of whom served under Alexander.
A linen cloth, called the Shroud of Turin, bears the image of a man who appears to have suffered physical trauma in a manner consistent with crucifixion.
Such a finding would only be evidence that a person was crucified during the 1st century, a time when many people were killed by crucifixion.
The Shroud of Turin is a forgery. After independent analysis by the University of Arizona, Oxford, and Swiss Federal Institute of Technology all results date the shroud to be from between 1260 and 1390 CE.
The "Letters of Abgarus and Jesus" are said to be written by Jesus Christ to King Abgar.
All known copies of these letters were written long after the time Jesus supposedly lived.
The letter forged as Jesus mirrors passages from the Diatessaron (c. 150-160 CE) and not the earlier versions of the gospels.
Josh McDowell said that the Talmud claims Jesus Christ existed.
There are no specific references to the figure Jesus Christ in the Talmud.
The Talmud was not written until 200-500 CE.
There is no contemporary evidence for Jesus Christ because during that time people only shared stories verbally.
Oral tradition applied to storytelling and folklore. Historians, on the other hand, documented events as they occurred or at least cited contemporary documentation in their works. Jesus is said to have lived during a time which is well documented in history.
Even if Jesus was said to live during a time when people did not write or document anything, this would still not be a reason to believe he existed. Rather it would be just an excuse to avoid supplying a reason.
C.S. Lewis argues that if Jesus was not a liar or lunatic, according to scripture, the only other option is that he was Lord.
First off, this is based on the assumption that the character Jesus Christ was an actual historical figure, which is not true.
“Lord, liar, or lunatic” are not the only options. There is another option that is far more common throughout history. The story of Jesus Christ could have also just been a legend, over exaggerated tales loosely based on a real person that was neither Lord, a liar, or a lunatic. Take for example the legends of Hercules. Hercules was a real person who was simply stronger than the average person. Over time people exaggerated stories of how strong he actually was and even credited his strength to have been given by the gods.
The people writing the Jesus stories were likely liars or lunatics which voids out anything they said about Jesus… or talking donkeys… or supernatural events.
9The following apologetic claims for creationism exist only because evidence does not.
Below are the most common claims, made by Christian Apologists, for creationism and “Intelligent Design.” Expand each one to see how blatantly false and dishonest they really are.
Darwinism supports "survival of the fittest" and leads to eugenics, which is immoral.
Whether or not life’s natural history is seen as “immoral” does not mean it is not true.
The term “survival of the fittest” and eugenics are actually based on Lamarckism, the disproven hypothesis that organism can pass on characteristics it acquired during its lifetime to its offspring. It is Darwin’s theory of evolution that proved Lamarckism to be wrong. He proved that evolution is not progressive or goal-oriented, and that mutations during the reproduction process are what gets passed on. Not characteristics acquired during one’s lifetime.
Evolution is just a theory, therefore is not actually true.
In layman’s terms a “theory” is just a hunch or guess. In scientific terms that is called a hypothesis. A theory in scientific terms is a well-substantiated explanation based on lines of evidence that enable valid predictions and have been tested through various means. The “theory of evolution” is a scientific fact, the explanation of how life evolved. The “theory of gravity” is the explanation of how gravity works.
Even Darwin said it's absurd to think the complex human eye could have evolved naturally.
Just because something sounds absurd does not mean it is not true.
What someone says or who said it is not important, the evidence supporting the claim is what actually matters.
This quote is from “The Origins of Species.” Here Darwin mentions the absurdity to point out that no matter how absurd an idea may sound it may still be true. He then goes on to explain how the human eye easily could have evolved through natural means, and even gives examples of the various intermediate stages which can be seen in organisms living today.
If humans evolved from apes why are there still apes?
As the theory of evolution explains, humans did not evolve from modern apes. They simply share a common ancestor, a species that no longer exists. Asking why are there still apes is like asking why are there still cousins.
Evolution is just a matter of faith too.
This simply is not true, at all. It does not require any faith to accept evolution as truth. The theory of evolution is a scientific explanation based on empirical evidence. Nothing in science requires faith or is a matter of belief, if it did then it would not be science.
If evolution were true we should see something like a half-duck half-crocodile.
This “Crockoduck” claim is by the apologists Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron, who know little to nothing about the theory of evolution… or science.
This is the opposite of what evolution tells us. Such a find would actually disprove evolution since ducks are not ancestors of crocodiles.
More importantly, species do not evolve to become a particular different species, and species also do not evolve in full segments. New species are defined simply by when genetic differences are too great for two organisms to successfully reproduce.
Micro evolution may be true, but macro evolution is not.
The only difference between Micro and Macro evolution is time and the number of accumulated changes. Macro and Micro evolution have little to nothing to do with appearances. Changes are accumulated to the DNA every time it is passed on during reproduction. If the accumulated changes, on a genetic level, causes organisms to be unable to reproduce fertile young with each other they are defined as separate species.
Evolution can't explain where life came from, so it can't be true.
True, the explanation of how life evolved cannot explain where life came from. Just as the theory of gravity can not explain how an object which is falling was first created. The theory of evolution has nothing to do with where life comes from, only with how that life evolves.
The main reason why we don’t know how life was first created through natural means is that there are so many known ways it could have naturally happened. There are various tested and proven explanations to how life most could have been formed, none of which invoke supernatural explanations.
Evolution is as likely as Boeing 747 being built by a tornado passing through a junkyard.
This claim by Apologist Fred Hoyle is based on the misconception that evolution is a strictly random process. Although the changes that occur in DNA during reproduction are random, the designing process is not random. The evolution of species is guided through a process known as natural selection.
Many scientists are switching to creationism.
Again, it doesn’t matter who says what, it is the evidence for their claim that matters.
This is not true. Almost every single scientist in fields related to the history of life agrees that evolution is a fact. A 1991 Gallup poll of Americans found that only about 5% of scientists identified themselves as creationists. However, this number includes those working in fields not related to life origins (such as computer scientists, mechanical engineers, etc.). Taking into account only those working in the relevant fields of earth and life sciences, there are about 480,000 scientists, but only about 700 believe in creationism or consider it a valid theory (Robinson 1995). This means that less than 0.15 percent of relevant scientists believe in creationism. And that is just in the United States, which has more creationists than any other industrialized country. In other countries, the number of relevant scientists who accept creationism drops to less than one-tenth of one percent.
Learn more at http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA111.html
This original claim, by The Discovery Institute, about a list of scientists rejecting evolution is an extremely dishonest one. To learn more watch this video by DonExodus2
Doesn't the Second Law of Thermodynamics disprove evolution?
The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that the state of entropy (disorder) of the entire universe, as an isolated system, will always increase over time.
Note, the “isolated system” part. Life is not an isolated system, we get energy from the sun. The Second Law of Thermodynamics disproves computers… unless you plug them into a power source.
Why should we turn to someone other than historians or scientists, the experts in their related fields of research, for answers related to history or science? Apologists are just there to take advantage of you, telling you what you want to hear when the evidence tells you otherwise.
The sheer existence of apologists is reason alone to raise suspicion. Their dishonesty is blatant when you simply double check what they say. In the end, historians and scientists are not just one big conspiracy against Jesus, the Bible is simply wrong about most things.