Kent Hovind currently makes my blood pressure rise. He's such an asshole!! They all are, but he's currently my worst, lol.

Bill Donohue is one of the most annoyingly stupid things. Non-stop ad hominem attacks.

Example of profound evil:

All the pre sups, they are annoying and egotistical

I will have to look up many listed below as I'm not familiar with many of them except Ham, Comfort, Craig. But two that I particularly dislike are Dennis Prager, because he is so pompously arrogant, and Frank Turek, because he's is so aggressive with his bullshit. He has said that if God commanded him to kill his child that he would. For those unfamiliar with him, here is a brief glimpse of his aggressive style in the opening of this video with Hitchens.

Matt Slick and Sye Ten Bruggancate.

William Lane Craig, is as pretentious as he is spurious in his debating. Saw him in a debate once state that there were written accounts of Jesus' life within 5 years of his death. He wasn't challenged. Pure crap. When challenged on his blog or whatever later he replied that what he meant was it is believed that were written accounts of Jesus' life within 5 years of his life but they didn't survive. Yeah, the dog ate his homework too. Dawkins and other atheists repeatedly call him out for mis-stating science and scientists, as well as history and other facts. He a Christian apologist who cares only for making specious arguments to his believer base. The truth and facts hardly matter. Totally my vote.

Ray Comfort and Kent Hovind are tied for first place with most of the rest of them just a hair's breadth behind. It's hard to make a choice among the apologists.

Sye Ten Bruggencate hands down. Oh what a pompous asshat.

Ken Hamm and Sye Ten Bitch

They're all human garbage, but I think Ham's anti-science crusade makes him the most offensive of an offensive lot.

a lot of people say Ham but I gotta go with David Miscavige, Tom Cruise or whoever his current lieutennant is. The scientologists are freaking wack.

I'm not sure if he falls under the apologist umbrella exactly, but I abhor Ken Ham.

He thinks I'm on par with the devil since I'm a science instructor. His "work" is at odds with everything I teach, critical thinking and free thought. He actually tells child that people like me are trying to trick them. Makes me angry.

Ken Ham, although Kent Hovind is not far behind. Ham runs the site Answers In Genesis, which is perhaps one of the most well known and influential creationist outlets.

The religious figures on my really dislike list are those who are mixing politics and religion and trying to cram it down our throats. All of the others, to me, are simply irrelevant.

My vote is for William Lane Craig. It mostly because of the talks/website of expastor John Loftus who took his classes as a grad student and now has a blog/website and has also writen and been the editor of books that expand on the problems with xianity. Also, Craig will now not debate Loftus because Loftus doesn't have a "doctorate" of theology.

I don't know much about any of them, but Kent Hovind is pretty easy to dislike. Ray Comfort is obnoxious, but so stupid that he's actually kind of amusing. I also find it really easy to despise Kirk Cameron.

Gracious! Why would I want to read a religious apologist's books? It's all nonsense, so why bother.