Tis the issue I alluded to when you slammed me earlier...
Slammed? Sorry if you read it like that, wasn't intended. I was simply saying I hadn't come across any dispute.
As it can and is a last ditch effort ...
That's a bit of an assumption, I think. It's one of a number of possible arguments, not necessarily the last ditch. And in the case of Lewis, I doubt it was.
Bultmann employed the reverse argument (as have you), that Christianity is a myth, because it reads like other myths. For a while it was thought the logic held up, but then was found wanting. I could call that your 'last ditch' defence of a lost position, but the language all sees a bit confrontational to me.
by anyone trying to convince, convert, or otherwise coerce ...
You see? 'always with the negative waves, Moriarty' (to quote
Kelly's Heroes)
Who's trying to 'coerce' here? No-one.
To 'convince' someone by reasonable, rational, logical argument is one thing. To 'convert' flows, I would hope, from the above.
But neither are, inherently, nor even necessarily, 'coercive', as that requires the deployment of force and/or threat.
The question might make you chuckle, but I suggest only because you've pre-disposed yourself towards it.
The question was, and remains, utterly viable. It's a reasonable, rational and logical dismissal of a rejection of faith on the grounds that it's just too fantastic to believe, which rests in the end on the assumption that one's own credibility is the benchmark of truth.
...