Dear Atheists: How to Defeat William Lane Craig in a Debate

William Lane Craig is a very, very good debater. Prior to a debate, he researches the positions of his opponent and is always well versed on the debate subject. He confines his responses to brief, poignant rebuttals which he has rehearsed multiple times. He routinely engages in mock debates prior to the real debate.

If you listen to the short Youtube clip above, you will learn that WLC will rarely agree to debate “just any atheist off the street”. He claims he doesn’t want to give these “popularizers” a platform. He doesn’t want to give them the spotlight. Craig only wants to debate atheists and agnostics who are top scholars at secular universities.

In the few instances in which WLC has agreed to debate an “ordinary” atheist these experiences have been “just awful”, in Craig’s view, due to the fact that these “popularizers” haven’t done the hard work of getting a degree and doing serious scholarship. Craig grimaces and adds, “The level of the conversation is so low with these people that it is just awful. It’s debating people who don’t even understand the issues, much less people who are able to give good arguments in favor of their view. These debates have been, in general, very unprofitable.”

If the topic of the debate is the origin of the universe or the source of morality, I can see how Craig is correct in insisting that his debate opponent be well educated and well versed in difficult academic subjects such as cosmology, philosophy, and logic.

But such academic training is completely unnecessary to debate Craig or any other Christian regarding the central tenet of his or her belief system: that the ghost of a first century peasant named Jesus of Nazareth “dwells within him”, speaking to him in a “still, small voice”, giving him comfort, guidance, and the promise of eternal life!

No, my friends. One needs no more education and training to reject this preposterous superstitious claim as did the small child who rejected the complicated, sophisticated-sounding arguments of the Emperor’s tailors. “Invisible cloth is not real. The Emperor is not wearing any clothes!”

Theistic apologists like William Lane Craig desperately want their debates to sound intellectually challenging, sophisticated, and complicated. But there is nothing intellectual, complicated, or sophisticated about ghosts, Mr. Craig. Ghosts are not real!

No one is living “within you”, Mr. Craig, except…you! You are talking to yourself.

You are operating under a superstitious delusion, WLC. A delusion taught to you as a child by an ancient, fear-based cult. One does not need a degree in cosmology, philosophy, or logic to know that virgins do not give birth to demi-gods, humans cannot walk on water, and brain-dead corpses do not come back to life to fly off into outer space.

Any ten year old who has not been brain-washed by your cult knows this, WLC. Your core belief is silly and preposterous. There is no more need to debate it than there is to debate the claim that the earth is flat…or that invisible clothing exists.

(Mic drop and walk off the stage.)






End of post.

12 thoughts on “Dear Atheists: How to Defeat William Lane Craig in a Debate

    1. I guess that is the point of my post: Skeptics should stop debating these superstitious cultists. Stop giving them a platform. We should simply call out the silliness of their core belief: corpse reanimation!

      Liked by 1 person

  1. Gary, I am sharing a tweet that Randal Rauser posted today. Take a good look at this tweet, because I believe it speaks volumes about Rauser. Rauser is stating that how we read, interpret, and apply the Bible is complex. So, let’s consider this. As per Judeo-Christian beliefs, God communicated to mankind via recorded scriptures. Collectively, the OT and NT texts were written over a stretch of centuries from start to finish. People have debated which books belong in the canon, who the actual authors were, and how to interpret the content etc. One could argue that the compiled set of scriptures were not widely available to people in various modern translations until fairly recently in human history. So, for many centuries, many humans, who have since lived and died, never once owned a copy or had direct access to a copy. Amplify this by the fact that untold numbers of people were functionally illiterate and could not read scripture if they did have access to it. And, to top it all off, as per Rauser, being able to read, interpret, and apply it is “complex”. So, along comes a sophisticated theologian like Randal Rauser, providentially spared of serious injury after being struck by a vehicle whilst riding his bicycle, to correctly interpret scriptural content though his progressive worldview. How fortunate the world is to have him. Our hero!

    Randal Rauser is F-A-N-A-T-I-C-A-L. I really do not know how else to characterize him.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Everything Randall says is true as related to the bible itself. HOWEVER — that HE is someone who has the wherewithal to “correctly interpret scriptural content” is nothing but sales pitch. And sadly, many will fall for it.


      1. I recall years ago a reader on his blog was shocked to discover Randal doesn’t know any of the biblical languages – Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic, in that correctly interpreting scriptural content entails reading in the original languages, rather than a translation. I would assume Randal disagrees otherwise he would learn those languages.

        Liked by 1 person

      2. Nan, if reading, interpreting, and applying the Bible is complex, what does that say about the “communicator” who supposedly inspired its contents for the purpose of communicating to masses of people who often disagree to this day re. the content? Interestingly, Rauser has gone to some length to defend the “communicator” by claiming the “communicator” could be intentionally vague here or there and/or makes accommodations here or there. Rauser seems to relish his perceived role in deciphering the complex content and instructing the simpletons. I have lost count of how many times he has belittled others as being “fundamentalists” or “village” people because, in his mind, they lack his level of sophistication re. theology and/or philosophy.

        I’d say that Randal is more than a “salesman”. I believe he thinks he was specifically called to be a lodestar to correctly interpret scripture through his progressive lens and to inform others. It seems he has dedicated a substantial chunk of his life to this pursuit. His formal education led to a terminal degree. He produces substantial content via books, articles, blog articles, podcasts, tweets, debates, instruction to his pupils at Taylor Seminary, and participation in conferences etc. I believe he is certain of his own importance, and he believes what he has to say is of great importance to the world.

        I believe he is fanatical.

        Liked by 2 people

        1. “I believe he is certain of his own importance.”

          As do so many others in this field, both professionals and those who like to think they’re professionals.


          1. How many of those people believe (a) God personally intervened to protect them from serious harm after being struck by a vehicle whilst riding a bicycle and (b) they may have been personally oppressed by an actual demon?
            I take it Randal believes he is of real cosmic importance if he genuinely believes those two things.

            Definitions from Oxford Languages
            filled with excessive and single-minded zeal

            I believe Randal is fanatical.


              1. Here’s another sample, Gary. Randal has publicly attacked Christians (especially conservative evangelicals) many times. Someone pointed this out to him, and Randal made a clear parallel between his actions and what the Bible said Jesus did re. calling out religious leaders.

                Messiah complex, much?


    2. Rauser has wrapped himself tightly in the delusion that being more educated than the average Joe somehow makes his superstitions more respectable. He is sadly mistaken.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. And of course there is the -what would you call it- irony perhaps, of there being equally or more qualified academics who would totally disagree with him.

        Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s