11. Corollary to #2: Assume that all atheist biblical scholars are credible because they have no agenda, but zero Christian biblical scholars are credible because they do have an agenda.
12. Corollary to #4: Loudly proclaim that all moral arguments for God’s existence can be refuted by the Euthryphro dilemma, along with an appeal to Biblical atrocities.
13. Clarification of #12 and corollary to #3: When we say “moral arguments” (plural) we really mean “moral argument” (singular), since the differences don’t matter. By definition, all moral arguments for God’s existence can be refuted by the Euthyphro dilemma and Biblical atrocities. Therefore, there is really just one moral argument for God’s existence.
14. If someone protests that their moral argument for God’s existence has nothing to do with voluntarism and so is not vulnerable to the Euthyphro dilemma, see rule #13. Chant with me! “There-is-really-just-one-moral-argument-for-God’s-existence.” Can I have an “amen”? Hallelujah! Praise be to the Flying Spaghetti Monster!
15. If an atheist claims to be a former Christian, believe him, but if a Christian claims to be a former atheist, don’t believe him. Once again, you can have your apologetic cake and eat it too!