When I challenge a Christian’s bizarre assertions, he almost never offers evidence or an argument to support them. Instead he argues that it is a good thing that people believe this assertion or that terrible things would happen if they did not. How do I explain what is going on?

1. The Christian is tacitly agreeing his assertions are false, but he wants me to go along with them because of his alleged social benefits of none-to-bright folk believing them.

2. His definition of true is quite different from mine. By true he means useful. Sometimes engineers talk about electricity as if it were a liquid, even though they know it is just a metaphor.

The way then to free the Christian of his delusions is to demonstrate to him that his lies are neither useful nor moral, that they have the exact opposite effects that he imagines. Whether they are literally true is of only secondary importance. He has morals similar to a used car salesman. He says which will get the effect he wants. Whether is it true is more or less immaterial.