[PairTheBoard]

Is this what you're trying to say? Category 4 people are those who find the religion more or less despicable for reasons other than its possible objective truth. When such people than argue against the objective truth of the religion you can't help but suspect their arguments to be tainted by prejudice from their distaste for it. Furthermore, their arguments are weakened when they include observations about the despicable nature of the religion.

Is that about it? An application of the Priciple you've stated in the past that if two people have an opinion on an issue, all other things being equal, you should give more weight to the one who has no personal interest in it, ie. doesn't care one way or the other what the truth is.

I'm not sure how well that principle applies here. For example, suppose you're talking to someone who believes in the old Aztec Religion where it is essential to make human sacrifices to please the gods. He is convinced that the rains will not come and the crops will not grow if the gods are not appeased. You find this religion despicable and ridiculous. Considering the hypothetical, "even if the religion is objectively true" you might claim that you "would" rebel against it. Are your arguments against its objective truth suspect? Is the despicable nature of the religion really irrelevant in the discussion?

PairTheBoard