This is one of the many ridiculous tweets I have been receiving since August 2012 regarding having debates on my blog.
Atheists message me every time accusing me of being unfair and dishonest.
The accusations are these:
I own the blog and have control, therefore:
- I have an “advantage.”
- Can edit or remove comments.
- Can take time posting an opponent’s reply.
These accusations are preposterous and are just an attempt to circumvent debating me. My blogs are academic in nature, hence they are licensed.
I do not have any advantage solely because it is my blog. Everyone is free to comment granted their comments fit the criteria for posting. I cannot post vulgarity, ad hominem or other comments that are not professional or polite.
Moreover, blogger does not give me the ability to edit comments. I can only remove or delete them completely. However, if I do “weed” out comments during a debate, then the flow of the debate will be disrupted and will not make any sense. Any arguments I make will be floating in the air while my opponent’s would be missing. This would not serve me any purpose if my intention is to educate people on both sides of the issue. This is why my debates have a format. They are not meant to be a long collection of comments.
While there may be a time difference on when comments are posted, this is not due to any attempt to delay the debate. Everyone has a life and a busy schedule. I am not on my blog 24/7 and cannot post every comment immediately. In any event, comments posted will post with the date it was first sent so there would be no difference in time noticeable to readers.
The real issue is that atheists know that once they post a comment, that comment will remain there. They cannot retract, edit or remove it. This is what they fear.
This is why I chose to debate on my blog. Everyone comments and those comments are the final word. They cannot be edited nor removed. Therefore, each debater must choose his/her words and arguments carefully.
Atheists want the ability to edit in order to keep their arguments as coherent as possible. This is unfair. One cannot have a fair debate when the other party is constantly changing a previous statement.
Atheists who refuse to debate me on my blog do so because they are not intellectually confident in posting arguments that are coherent and bring substance to their premise.
My debates are very fair for the following reasons:
- No comments can be altered or removed
- There is a direct format on how to carry on the debate.
- No ad hominem or silly comments are allowed
- The public are the moderators and decide who did a better job
The charges that my blogs or debates are unfair or intellectually dishonest holds no weight. They are just cop-out attempts.
For the past few months I have been tweeting the following:
You may be wondering why… well, In August of 2012 I invited vocal twitter user and self-proclaimed atheist “Rosa Rubicondior” to a debate on my newly formedrationallyfaithful.blogspot.com blog. I provided the rules for the engagement and Rosa kindly accepted (http://www.sacerdotus.com/2012/08/proof-rosa-accepted-debate.html).
I even gave Rosa the opportunity to present the opening statement first. However, Rosa began to dilly dally. Instead of posting an opening statement, Rosa began claiming victory. Rosa would mention me in defensive tweets along with the hashtag #won. This was both hilarious and absurd. Atheists online are known for their comedy; however, I was not expecting this behavior from Rubicondior who seems to take blogging seriously. This was the reason why I chose Rosa to debate with in the first place. I felt Rosa would have been a serious opponent to engage in a debate and that our debate would bring forth knowledge from both sides of the aisle, so to speak.
Instead of a serious academic debate, Rosa turned it into a circus. See: http://www.sacerdotus.com/2012/10/poor-thingchoking-on-defeat.html. Rosa would then round up other atheists who would then attack me via twitter mentions. This was obviously a deflection. Rosa “bit too much” and was trying desperately to get out of the debate. This was obviously due to the fact that Rosa was intellectually out-matched. I hold advanced degrees in the sciences and from reading Rosa’s blog, one can tell that Rosa is not amicable to academia.
In any event, Rosa’s behavior greatly brought embarrassment This would harm Rosa’s reputation and would cause a chain reaction of twitter suspensions. Christians, Muslims and others began reporting Rosa and other atheists after they were all exposed as charlatans and trolls tainting the belief called atheism.
Out of spite, Rosa and other atheists began attacking and reporting me and those who they suspected were “sock puppets.” This showed further that atheists on twitter are nothing more than immature charlatans looking to get a cheap laugh out of bullying. I have not found one who is serious enough to debate in an academic setting. Everything is a joke to them and their rebuttals are ad hominem.
If the constant reporting or “twitter gulag” was not enough, Rosa and another twitter user began to Google my pen name “sacerdotus.” Naturally, many hits will come from searching “Sacerdotus.” Apparently, a young high school child named Manuel used “Sacerdotus” in his profiles and Rosa and this twitter user immediately linked him to me. Rosa posted this minor’s private information online and began to disparage and make prejudicial remarks about Manuel and Bronx people.
To my knowledge, the United Kingdom is very strict on cyber bullying and other offenses via communication networks:
127- Improper use of public electronic communications network
(1)A person is guilty of an offence if he—
(a)sends by means of a public electronic communications network a message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character; or
(b)causes any such message or matter to be so sent.
(2)A person is guilty of an offence if, for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety to another, he—
(a)sends by means of a public electronic communications network, a message that he knows to be false,
(b)causes such a message to be sent; or
(c)persistently makes use of a public electronic communications network.
(3)A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable, on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or to both.
(4)Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply to anything done in the course of providing a programme service (within the meaning of the Broadcasting Act 1990 (c. 42)). (Communications Act 2003)
I hope Rubicondior will be smart and remove references to this child from blogs and tweets and avoid making them in order to prevent legal problems. Rosa may hide behind an old lady Halloween mask, but law officials can trace the origin of any computer devices used to blog and tweet.
If you reading this continue to see Rosa mention Manuel, please contact:
There is no reason to abuse any child online. Rosa Rubicondior is breaking the law and should be ashamed.
Furthermore, I continue to invite Rosa to continue our debate to keep the memory of Rosa’s collapse alive. This will show twitter users that Rubicondior and other atheists are not to be taken seriously. They do not represent true atheism, only a slap stick version of it.
Hopefully one day Rosa Rubicondior will own up to atheism and defend it against me. It makes no sense to have a blog with articles attacking God and religion; tweeting anti-God and religious tweets, but not be able to defend those ideas against me. It shows a lack of intellectual confidence. Rosa wants to be heard and when questioned, runs away.
What will Rosa do next?
- First, Rosa cries out victory in a debate Rosa ran from.
- Second, Rosa launches a reporting spam campaign against me and those who follow me on twitter.
- Third, Rosa randomly picks a child named Manuel to abuse online by misidentifying him as me.
- Fourth, Rosa begins to name random Seminaries claiming I once belonged to them and was expelled.
What will this mentally unstable individual present next? What other libelous public statements will this individual make in order to deflect?
Stop whining and posting lies and debate me already!
If you are an atheist on twitter and are reading this, why do you follow this charlatan? Does it not mean anything to you that this clown is so vocal on atheism but silent when invited to defend it in a debate against me?
Aiding and abetting Rosa’s behavior only feeds Rosa’s delusion and shows you to be mentally unstable as well.
Here are some tweets I found which I will reply to here:
Again, to remind all that Rubicondior is all “bark but no bite.” If this atheist were truly confident in his/her defense of atheism, then a debate would not be such a big deal. Obviously, Rosa does not have the intellectual confidence to debating me.
How is it biased? It is an academic blog geared towards Theist/Atheist dialog. What is the fear? Each participant will have equal opportunity to voice his/her opinions or statements. Think about it. Why would I risk the credibility of my blog? What purpose would a blog that is biased serve?
That is your personal distorted account which pales when faced with the actual evidence. Notice your post does not contain tweets, but only your take on the events. Do you honestly believe people are stupid enough to buy into this? The very fact that you call me “Manuel” shows you are lying.
As stated above, you chose this child because of my pen name “sacerdotus.” I am not him nor am I in St. Joseph’s seminary. At least this time you got the seminary name right. St. Joseph’s seminary is for the archdiocese of New York which I am not a part of.
Until you provide tweets supporting your take, your post is bunk.
Why do you insist on calling me by a child’s name? Are you not aware of your nation’s laws regarding abuse online? There is no gaffe on my part. It is well publicized that you constantly make gaffes not only on twitter, but on your blog as well.
I was never in St. Joseph’s seminary. It is part of the archdiocese of New York. Do you have evidence of this? I am curious to see how you got access to private files that not even other priests in the archdiocese have access to. It is obvious that you are deflecting your loss in the debate by posting libelous statements.
Are you serious? Since when is starting the debate and constantly inviting Rosa to participate equate to avoiding a debate? Naturally, a debate started by me must be on my terms since I made the debate and you accepted those terms.
The derange behavior is from you Rosa who chose a random child to abuse online in order to displace your anger.
What humiliation? You ran away from the debate! No one takes you seriously anymore. You are a caricature on twitter, nothing more.
There is something odd about my invitation to debate you being considered “insane” yet your abuse of a child is not.
That is a silly question. The reason why I made the “Rationally Faithful” blog was to have a forum for discussions regarding theism and atheism. Why have debates on multiple sites? I want all of them to be in one site where all can view them at their leisure. There is no such thing as “neutral ground.” On onlinedebate, participants can edit posts. This is unfair. On my blog, there is no such feature. Once you post, it will remain their until the blog is deleted (which will never happen) or blogger stops its service. If the latter happens, I will naturally move the contents to another site.
I had already posted the rules/terms and Rosa accepted.
You call me an ‘idiot’ for trying to keep order in a debate? Who is the real idiot?
That is not my name. If you noticed my engagement with Rosa via twitter, I offered Rosa the option of positing on a word processing storage site and/or as a guest blogger. Rosa refused showing that Rosa lacks the intellectual confidence in debating me.
I ran across an article from the Huffington Post claiming that Archbishop Paglia stated that the Vatican must do more to support gay couples. The article seemed fishy as I read it. It seems the media is twisting the Archbishop’s words or intention and making it seem as if the Vatican is lending validity to gay couples. I will investigate the sources well in order to confirm the Archbishop’s words.
The Catholic Church already speaks out against violence brought upon anyone. We need not focus solely on gay couples. If we do this, then we are giving validity to that unnatural union. The Church must be clear that homosexual unions or any live in situations is against God and morality. They are an attack on marriage and chastity.
At the same time, the Church must do more to educate the people so that hate crimes would not occur. While we may not agree with homosexual unions, this does not mean that we should sit back as we hear reports of homosexuals being beaten down or killed. Like the Good Samaritan, we must stop and help the stranger even if that stranger does not share our same views.
Homosexuals are God’s children as well and we must pray for them. Any violence or hatred against them is an attack against God.
As I suspected, Archbishop Paglia’s words were misconstrued by the media. The Archbishop was shocked at how the media “derailed” his comments to mean something he did not intend.