Please correct me where I am wrong

[robvalue]

I call him a con man because he is aware and intelligent enough to know exactly what the fallacies are in his arguments, but he uses them regardless. He is unashamedly dishonest, when he said he'd believe in Christianity even if it was proven to be false by actually witnessing the so called events. I'm saying why he is a "con man", not just throwing the words out there.

So I don't literally mean he is nothing more than a con man, I apologize if that sounded too strong. It's an offhand generalisation, it's not a direct accusation I would make in so many words in a court of law. If I had to sum him up in two words, those are the words I would use. He makes money from making mostly fallacious arguments and using dishonest tactics. Sure, atheists may too sometimes be guilty of similar transgressions. But that's besides the point. I'll happily criticise any atheist any time they employ dishonest tactics.

But again, I'm happy to back this up. Bring me something he says and I'll analyse it. I did so with that thing he wrote about miracles. It's a load of fancy language deflecting from the fact that it's just a tautology. "If God exists, then God can do things a god could do." Of course, he doesn't say the "if" part, he just assumed it to be true. So doubly dishonest.