Cold Case Christianity, quick shots, and stupid non-Christians

This is my reply to an article by J. Warner Wallace entitled

Cold Case Christianity: 

Quick Shot: “Truth cannot be known with any certainty”          

Posted: 15 Apr 2019 01:10 AM PDT

Our “Quick Shot” series offers brief answers to common objections to the Christian worldview. Each response is limited to one paragraph. These responses are designed to (1) answer the objection as concisely as possible, (2) challenge the objector to think more deeply about his or her claim, and (3) facilitate a “gospel” conversation. In this article, we’re offering “Quick Shot” responses to the objection, “You can’t be certain about Christianity because truth cannot be known with any certainty.”

Then you are apparently dealing with a very stupid non-Christian.

snip

Response #2:

“What do you mean by certainty? Do you mean “beyond a possible doubt”? If that’s the standard, we would be paralyzed by fear and indecision. Will my car explode when I turn the key today? I can’t be sure beyond a possible doubt. Will my next restaurant meal result in food poisoning? Again, I can’t be certain beyond a possible doubt. We can’t (and don’t) live by that standard, because, if we did, we wouldn’t want to leave our homes.

So apparently, you DO find human reasoning to be acceptable.  What makes you think it isn't acceptable when evaluating other claims, like the bible-god's not needing sacrifice in order to get rid of sin?

Instead we live by a lower standard known as “beyond a reasonable doubt.” This is also the standard we apply to the most serious criminal trials. If it’s good enough to use in those trials, it’s also good enough for us to use in our daily lives.

And if it's good enough to use in criminal trials, its also apparently good enough, by your own estimation, to be used to analyze biblical claims.   Anonymous witnesses count for exactly nothing in most trials, because you cannot cross-examine them to make sure of their credibility.  If it were otherwise, anybody could get on the stand and say anything, and their anonymity would prevent the parties from uncovering truths about the witness's true level of credibility.  That is, the jury would be given nothing by which to decide whether the witness is believable.

So since most Christian scholars agree that the gospels are anonymous, and disagree more on to what extent any of their contents draw from eyewitness sources, if at all...it sucks to be J. Warner Wallace right about now.  If he had known how the gospels utterly fail the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard of evidence used in criminal trials, he probably wouldn't have written the "Cold Case Christianity" marketing gimmick that currently pays for his air fare as he runs around making "appearances".

Do you honestly think truth can’t be known beyond a reasonable doubt?

In the case of ancient history, yes.  In the case of incoherent ideas like "god" that need endless ad hoc rescue to prevent them from being kicked to the curb, yes. 

Have you ever applied this standard to the case for God’s existence or the truth of Christianity?”

Yes.  Since "god" as used in traditional religious parlance is an incoherent idea (performs the physical functions of ears, eyes, etc, but without physicality) the only thing beyond reasonable doubt here is how undeserving "god" is of any serious discussion, except in the sense of explaining why it is reasonable to say "fuck you" to any Christian who wants to discuss theism.

 

I've also applied the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard to the gospels, which are anonymous, and anonymous witnesses are of no value in court except in rare situations not applicable here.  The more anonymous the witness, the less you should put stock in anything they have to say.  And, of co)urse, the problem of anonymity (it prevents us from asking pointed questions) plagues apostle Paul too, since his identifying himself doesn't get rid of the problems in his "testimony".

Well...THIS atheist is not nearsighted about reality: a reply to Nate Sala

This is my reply to an article emailed to me by Nate Sala, entitled

Why Atheists Are Nearsighted About Reality

by Nate Sala

Wed, Apr 10, 1:42 PM (2 days ago) 

 

snip

As Christian communicators, we sometimes come across people who raise objections to our belief in Jesus. As a matter of fact, atheists will often say, “I can’t get behind a god who allows so much suffering in the world,” and then describe emotionally compelling stories about children dying of cancer, for example, who suffered so much pain and then died way too soon. It's heartbreaking to hear stories like that, or to watch loved ones go through tragedy, or to even experience it ourselves. And for a lot of people it’s very compelling to doubt God in the face of suffering.

Then under the logic of Frank Turek's "moral argument for God", the popularity of this moral sentiment would reasonably imply a god who puts into your heart certain laws that blatantly contradict the sadistic morale seen in the OT YHWH.  Let's just say the god who causes your heart to cry out as you watch a preteen prostitute get burned to death, probably wasn't the god who authored Leviticus 21:9.

But here’s where atheists make a huge mistake: they’re spiritually nearsighted; that is, they can't see beyond their own existence. Friends, we have about 80 years on this earth before we die; but according to atheist belief, after that 80 year stretch is complete, there is no more existence. In other words, the 80 years we have on this earth is all that matters. Imagine what happens when tragedy or suffering or disease dramatically steals someone’s ability to live 80 years; that's unforgivable, isn’t it? For an atheist, the only shot they had has been stolen and they'll never get another one.

Which is why atheism makes life more precious than Christianity.

Friends, before Christ saved us we were all nearsighted. We couldn’t see past the 80 years in our own lifespan. But now that Christ has freed us,

 Typical meaningless talk.  This "freedom" is nothing but a word, and is about as discernably true as the "freedom" Mormons claim to experience after they converted to Mormonism.  It words wonders within the confines of their religious view, and it makes not a lick of sense otherwise.

and we no longer fear death (because we know that death is only the beginning),

More meaningless talk...plenty of Christians fear death.  There is nothing about Christianity that turns its followers into eager martyrs...lest you end up saying 99% of the church is comprised of false Christians?  That would make rejection of Christianity even more reasonable, we don't have 800 years to sift through all the linguistic games played by competing Christian scholars to figure out which denomination is "right".

our vision has been corrected. We have a clear lens that gives us the ability to see beyond our own lifetime… into eternity.

Perhaps that explains why no two Christians agree on all bible doctrine.

When you view the suffering that takes place in the here and now in light of eternity, it takes on an entirely different meaning!

And giving false hope to idiots is unfair and manipulative.

To know that the suffering and death of the physical body is not the suffering and death of the immortal soul, and to know that eternity dramatically overshadows 80 years into almost nothing, is to understand that suffering is a “momentary affliction that is preparing for us an eternal weight of glory beyond all comparison” (2 Corinthians 4:17).

Once again, no demonstration, these are just the hopes of the hopeless.  it's perfectly obvious that this life is full of unfairness and pain, so instead of realistically admiting "life's a bitch, then you die", you instead look to the sky, with glazed over eyes.  Feel free to believe what you will, but expect a reality-check if you get all cocky and start telling atheists how they're nearsighted about reality.

So when you’re in conversations with atheists who say, “I can’t get behind a god who would allow evil in this world,” I think it’s appropriate to point out that they're trying to evaluate the Christian worldview without fully adopting its framework.

 We are, because we've already shown reasonable empirical justification for rejecting the framework.  You've never shown convincing evidence that it is even meaningful to talk about life continuing after physical death.

In other words, they're nearsighted!

 You mean in the same way that we don't evaluate Mormon claims from within the context of Mormon belief?  Correct.

They are looking at suffering while at the same time refusing to see past their own lifetime.

 Precisely because the whole idea of non-physical life itself, and such a thing continuing after physical death, is incoherent.  Children are very capable of fantasizing and many adults retain that ability to deny reality whenever they think doing so would feel good.

Ask them, instead, to try on your Christian glasses. Ask them to evaluate suffering through the Christian framework.

 You mean like asking us to evaluate Mormon claims from within the Mormon framework?  No thank you, I already have sufficient reasons to reject both frameworks as premised on pure fantasy.

If people really want to evaluate a robust system of beliefs they must adopt the entire framework for those beliefs, step inside it (so to speak), and then look around to see if it really makes sense.

 Such method of analysis would make it impossible to conclude that Mormonism is nonsense.  No thank you.

If skeptics and non-believers would at least do that, they would have a better perspective by which to hear the good news of the Gospel they so desperately need.

I'm getting the feeling that what I've chosen to rebut has more to do with good words and fair speeches, and less to do with actual argument.  Dismissed.

Doscher v. Apologetics Afield, Plaintiff's 1st Amended Complaint and Motion for reconsideration

 Update: May 6, 2019:  A higher judge disagreed with the Magistrate's threat of dismissal.  The higher judge "granted" my motion to proceed in forma pauperis.  See update below.


Update: April 12, 2019:  See at the end of this article my challenge to Holding, which I posted to his youtube channel, a few seconds ago.

A few days ago, I received in the mail an Order from the Magistrate Judge in my current lawsuit against
James Patrick Holding "Doscher v. Apologetics Afield".  

The order threatened to file a Recommendation for Dismissal because the original Complaint was allegedly defective in its pleading.  What exactly was defective?  The place the Order stated what was wrong with the Complaint, was on page 5, and Court documented the pleading-defects in the Complaint with two-sentences.  Two whole sentences!  I'm not worthy!



------------------------------------------
In case you were wondering, yes, this type of conveniently non-specific accusation appears calculated to make sure that no matter what modifications to the Complaint I make, there will be no way to absolutely prove that I sufficiently "corrected" these unspecified "deficiencies".  So therefore, there will always be a way for the Court to pretend that even the best modifications "failed to correct" said unspecified "deficiencies".

That's the whole reason lawyers will use ambiguous language.  It enables them to stay in the game even if the other side effectively assuages their concerns.  If they get too specific, they risk the other party specifically rebutting them, and the legal claim based on those facts gets thrown out.  By being subtle, you can always go back and claim that the other party hasn't reasonably disproved your contentions.

For example, suppose I have a problem with my girlfriend constantly inviting her friends over to my house without my permission.

If I said "I would really appreciate it if you wouldn't be constantly inviting your friends over to my house without my permission", she would be able to discern exactly what the problem was, at least enough to know how she must change her ways if she wishes to attempt alleviating the problem.  With such specific language I'm taking a risk that she knows enough to successfully correct the problem and thus successfully deprive me of a reason to bitch at her. 

But suppose I notified her of this problem, by using conclusory ambiguous language such as "you've been doing things that I don't really like." (!?)  How the fuck is she supposed to pinpoint the problem with a "warning" having that level of ambiguity?  Wouldn't it be rational to expect her to ask for a more definite statement?  Of course.  She'd mostly likely ask 'what things?' in an effort to pinpoint the basis of the problem.

I've also always wondered why car manufacturers create "warning" lights so you can "tell" when the "engine" needs "service".  The warning saying "engine needs service", is no more helpful than if it simply said "whoops!".

Needless to say, I responded to the Court in two ways:

     a) A motion for reconsideration.  I outline exactly how this Order is in "clear" error and runs afoul of Florida's Middle District precedent on notice-pleading, and I show how the Complaint's wording easily passes the liberal standard of review Florida requires Judges to employ when reviewing Complaints like mine.  Not only this, I cite recent 11th Circuit and Florida Middle District case law which the Magistrate clearly contravened.

     b)  Since it appears inevitable from the Order's ambiguous language that no type of "correction" of any pleading "deficiencies , short of excising 90% of the claims, would satisfy this Magistrate's clearly illegal standard of review, I also filed a 1st Amended version of the Complaint, reducing it from 97 to 53 pages, and making more specific allegations as to how Holding's internet-based comments about me were actionably libelous.  I have no faith, whatsoever, that this sufficiently pled amended Complaint will satisfy the Magistrate, but in litigation, sometimes you do all that you can, not because you think the Judge will change his mind, but because you need to develop a record of the Judge's legal errors in order to make an appeal more successful.

If the Magistrate ignores the motion for reconsideration and dismisses the amended complaint, he will likely say so in his Report and Recommendation.  And since it is unlikely that his superior Judge who makes the final determination to dismiss would disagree with him, it appears that I'm going to have to file an appeal to the 11th Circuit.  As I conclude at the end of my motion, the idea that the corporate attorney Holding would have to hire, would read the Complaint and be left guessing at what the claims are and their factual and legal bases, is a perfect absurdity. 

So in case you are wondering just how far astray from Florida law this Magistrate's intentionally conclusory language actually got, you can download the Order, the Motion to Reconsider and the 1st Amended Complaint, which I mailed to the Court yesterday, at the following link.

See here. (you'll need winrar or similar zip utility, which you can get for free here)

You can download the original Complaint and other relevant documents from the link over here.

Once again, for the people who think the Magistrate was being consistent with Florida law in threatening such dismissal, the challenge to them is to demonstrate that my rebuttal-position in the Motion for Reconsideration somehow doesn't apply Florida law correctly to the facts in this case.

Once again, there's a very good reason why only mentally retarded yet safely anonymous YouTube and theologyweb nobodies comprise the vast bulk of Holding's current fan-base.

Don't forget though, that I forced Holding to dissolve his two non-profit corporations.  He would hardly have done this, had he seriously believed that my biblical and legal attacks on him were "frivolous".  He recognizes his mouth has foreclosed him from ever making any significant money in the future despite his plan to write books and conduct speaking engagements.

Perhaps he limits himself to "Indonesian" churches, whose specific address he refuses to publicly disclose,  because they are mostly filled with people not fluent in English and thus they are most unlikely to discover my English-language biblical and legal rebuttals to him available at this blog.  So when he speaks at their church, they have no idea that he has an extensively documented history of willful sin between 1998 and up to the present, NONE of which he ever repented of, nor likely ever will.  Apparently, the prosperity gospel follower isn't the only type of Christian that can be so horrifically blind that they mistake sin for holy conduct.

 Update April 12, 2019: 
Here's the challenge to Holding I posted at his YouTube channel.  He's gone all quiet and smug because he is a pussy, and he cares more about winning at any cost, than he does about winning in legally acceptable fashion.

Holding has made these posts invisible to his babies, so that he can continue giving the false impression that I don't have any answers to such threats.

posted to:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lJ6JYdrXT8
--------------------------------------

This is Christian Doscher, I've refuted the magistrate's threat of dismissal, See
https://turchisrong.blogspot.com/2019/04/doscher-v-apologetics-afield-plaintiffs.html

If you are so sure the Magistrate's recommendation of dismissal is in accord with Florida's minimal pleading requirements for pro se litigants, let's see you do something you've never done: refute my rebuttal arguments ON THE MERITS. Any comments at my blog that amount to less than this, and they get deleted. FUCK YOU.

If the magistrate continues foisting an unlawfully high burden on me, I will timely file a long list of legal and factual objections to any Report and Recommendation for dismissal. It will be fun watching the higher Judge try to fulfill his legal obligation to review the objections "de novo" and pretend they lack substance, in his predictable effort to agree with the Magistrate.

And if the case is entirely dismissed, I'll be timely filing an appeal to the 11th Circuit. FUCK YOU. You haven't been served process yet. My obligation to treat trash in respectable fashion hasn't begun yet. So in exercise of my 1st Amendment right, which has not been inhibited by any operation of law, FUCK YOU.

-------------------------


Update May 6, 2019:
(here's what I posted to Holding's tekton tv youtube channel)

Holding will probably create a new video about how America's court system is run by the devil. After all, the Court just granted my motion to proceed in forma pauperis. That is, the magistrate judge's threat of dismissal was overridden by a higher judge, and Holding will now be served and my 3rd libel lawsuit against him will get started. See

https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/26884971/Doscher_v_Apologetics_Afield,_Inc






if you are concerned that the judge also "denied" my "motion for reconsideration", you might wish to read that motion yourself. It contains clues as to why the higher judge disagreed with the Magistrate and allowed this case to proceed.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1w1dthEys5xr_HVkntR2nhFalfYuZkyqS/view?usp=sharing













------------end up update.