In another example of showing the brainwashed mind of brainwashed religious people, I am going to list William Lane Craig’s “evidence”.

When I say this is an example I mean it is showing how the religious mind works, or more to the point DOES NOT WORK.

The above statement is not an attack but rather it means that the brain simply bipasses logic. Many people simply want to hear the answer, but refuse to acknowledge that they don’t understand the formula to the answer.


For example WLC’s 3 great facts:

1) The resurrection appearances

2) The empty tomb

3) The origin of the christian faith

Let’s think about this.

1 and 2
(A) -Over 2000 years ago

(B) -No evidence outside of the bible

(C) -Several different plausible and non-supernatural examples and possibilities:

>>> Wasn’t really dead

>>> His body was stolen

>>> Wasn’t really Jesus who was crucified

>>> The story never happened and was a fabrication made up to control people made up by the Romans to get them to pay their taxes

>>> It could have been Jesus’s brother Judas they seen walking around

>>> Recycled myth from the old testament, or other gods

Many more possibilities.

As for 3

a) The Jewish Old Testament has no truth and no historical accuracy and all are impossibilites and stories.

b) The origin of the christian faith or New Testament is simply this:

>>> There is no real proof that the Jesus story ever REALLY happened.

>>> The fact of the matter is that there is no real proof Jesus was ever even real.

>>> We know today that cults happen constantly and some with completely individual religions like scientology and we don’t believe them but we know that people follow them.

>>> Charles Manson had people thinking he was some sort of god and we know how that went.

>>> If Jesus was real there is nothing saying that he was just some guy who people looked up to and was crucified.

>>> There is nothing saying that he couldn’t have just been exaggerated with hearsay.

>>> There is nothing saying that christianity isn’t simple indoctrination and hearsay right from the start.

>>> We know for a fact that if it wasn’t for emperor Constantine that christianity wouldn’t exist today and that he is the only reason christianity wasn’t wiped out and was what gave it the push.

>>> Another example is Bernie Madoff. Nobody questioned how he made people money but that he did because he “was a genius”. He ended up ripping people off for 65 BILLION.

– Nobody doubted and nobody questioned. They had complete FAITH in Bernie. Another example how having FAITH is dangerous and harmful.

There isn’t anything that I’ve listed above that isn’t either a truth, or a plausible possibility.


Craig lists 10 lines of evidence for the historicity of the story of Jesus:

1) “The historical credibility of the burial story supports the tomb”.

-What credibility?

-What tomb? Where? What proof of a tomb?

-There is no truth to this statement and anyone who believes this statement is willing to believe anything but there is no truth.

2) “Paul’s testimony implies the historicity of the empty tomb”.

a) Pauls testimony proves nothing.
-Paul isn’t even proven to be a real person.

b) Paul’s dreams and visions of Jesus were not proof of anything and would not be held up in court today in anyway.

c) Anyone can lie and say they have dreams.

d) Paul could simply have said the whole story of Jesus simply to keep people in control and get them to pay their taxes and all under the authority of the Roman Government.

e) The whole story of Jesus and the creation of christianity could simply have been a way to replace, or dismiss Jewish law and to make Jews look bad.

– Notice Judas’s name is attributed to Judaism, as if to say that the Jews are the bad ones and the betrayers.

f) PAUL NEVER ONCE MENTIONS AN EMPTY TOMB! Paul simply said “Jesus was buried”.

3) “The prescence of the empty tomb pericope in the pre-Markan passion story supports it’s historicity”.

a) No it doesn’t.

b) There is no proof of any gospel being real.

c) There is nothing to say that all 4 gospels weren’t made up and that they aren’t completely fictious.

d) There is nothing to say that Paul and the Romans weren’t responsible for the whole story just to keep people under control.

4) “The use of ‘on the 1st day of the week’ instead of ‘on the 3rd day’ points to the primitiveness of the tradition”.

a) So what?

b) That isn’t proof of anything.

5) “The narrative is theologically unadorned and non-apologetic”

a) So what?

b) That isn’t proof of anything.

6) “The discovery of the tomb by women is highly probable”.

a) No it isn’t.

b) So the author decided to make the finders of the empty tomb women, big deal.

c) Maybe the author decided to make it women because they ACTUALLY didn’t see what difference it made!

7) “The investigation of the tomb by Peter and John is historically probable”.

a) No it isn’t.

b) Says who? WLC? Since when does opinion become FACT?

c) There is no proof that Peter and John were even real either.

d) A story without truth is still just a story.

8) “It would’ve been impossible for the disciples to proclaim the resurrection in Jerusalem had the tomb not been empty”.

a) Again, there is no proof of this story being real.

b) If you think about it, what if there was a body found, but people did see Jesus die. They would still believe he was resurrected so WLC’s point is invalid.

c) WLC is giving nothing BUT OPINION.

d) You can say that is what I am saying is opinion also, but what I am saying is based on the fact that people were gullible, superstitious fools back then and a body wouldn’t have been required.

e) What WLC is saying is based on nothing but meaningless OPINION backed by nothing that he is somehow trying to pass off as fact.

f) The entire gospels are based on hearsay and nothing else.

9) “Jewish polemic presupposes the empty tomb”.

-polemic meaning “arguing against because of controversy”

-presupposes meaning “to assume beforehand”

a) So what?

b) This proves NOTHING.

c) Whether they said the tomb was empty, or not, people will believe anything.

d) People today believe anything based on a 2000 year old story book with no proof whatsoever, so why wouldn’t they believe the story if the tomb was empty, or not.

e) If there was a body found and people simply said “God made Jesus a new body” wouldn’t have made the story any less believable, or more believable.

10) “Jesus tomb was not venerated as a shrine”.

a) AGAIN, this is not proof in any way shape, or form that Jesus even existed.

b) Big deal! Not being a shrine is even less proof.

c) AGAIN, WLC is stating opinion only.

How anything that WLC says can be mistaken for a rational argument is mindboggling.

WLC’s words are just another example of indoctrinated people only hearing “this is why” they never think about the explanations though. If they actually deconstructed what he said they would see that WLC will NEVER say anything that is FACT.

He will only say:

-Opinion (which he passes as fact)

-Ridiculously put together sentences that need a dictionary with words people never use.

-History which is completely bible based, but we know that there is no historical truth to anything in the bible, outside of the bible.

-He will constantly say he is winning an argument when he isn’t, but is great at pretending, so great at pretending that people (especially the religious people who only hear what they want to hear) will actually think that he is.

-He will challenge his opponents at certain tasks which are ridiculous and claim that since they didn’t bother to answer his questions rather than make their own points, that he is winning the debate.

There really is no nice way to describe WLC. He is a dishonest, misleading person who deludes people and tells them what they want to hear. Anyone who thinks he has any idea what he is talking about is delusional and brainwashed.