My fan base is increasing among atheists. Not only do I have Rosa Rubicondior stalking kids and abusing them all because she wants to get at me, now I have another guy named Jake dedicating a post to me.
I will answer the post here. His comments will be in blue and mine will be in black. My original text which he cited will be in italics.
<<This poor soul is known simply as “Sacerdotus”, and is a self-proclaimed future priest/Twitter user. For those of us who know him, Sac has made himself known by a multitude of tweets and propaganda designed to demonize atheists. He has also made numerous claims that he is inclined to a civilized debate, but any and all attempts to organize one have been in vain. Though various offers for debate still stand for this “prepared contender”, Sacerdotus’ popularity ironically stems from his ability to avoid all requests made by atheists who challenge him.>>
Notice that Jake has to resort to ad hominem and never attacks my arguments against atheism. This shows that he does not have the intellectual confidence to logically refute any of my arguments. By attacking me, he hopes it will distract from his inability to address my arguments against atheism. I do not demonize atheists. I refute atheism for the stupidity it is. Atheism is a position I held most of my life. I know the premise well and am qualified to judge it and refute it to the best of my ability. In light of this, I choose to use my academic credentials in the sciences and philosophy to take on atheism.
The assertion that I refuse to debate is ridiculous. I even have a specific blog for this purpose: rationallyfaithful.blogspot.com. A visit to the blog will show some debates that have already taken place without issue. Jake is obviously lying and for obvious reasons. To date, I have not denied any one a fair debate on my blog. Atheists on twitter prefer using twitter for the exchange; however, I feel that twitter is too limited. Twitter allows a certain amount of tweets and they are not organized. During a debate, anyone can interject and disrupt the flow of the debate. On my blog, debates are organized, coherent, uncensored and no one other than my opponent can participate. Furthermore, the debate is static on my blog and available to anyone who wants to read it.
<<This, along with his usual list of pre-made logical fallacies has earned him quite the reputation as a dishonest debate partner. Let’s take a deeper look into why no one should ever take Sacerdotus seriously, shall we?
Every time someone brings up the topic of his faith, he takes painstaking efforts to claim that he, himself was an atheist once. Ironically, his conversion story is as dull as it is implausible. Throughout the tale, Sac shows how clever one must be when weaving a tale of inspirational change. Peppered generously between the lines of the tale are popular, stereotypical atheist lines that are used only by the most incompetent of godless ranters. He then explains what brought him to Catholicism, exposing his past for what it actually was.>>
Jake claims that I have “pre-made logical fallacies” but fails to list them, or even attempt to refute them. This is typical of atheists. They are quick to point what they believe to be fallacies, but do not offer a counter argument for them. We are left to believe they are fallacious arguments only because they say it is. This is intellectually dishonest.
Jake contradicts himself. In his opening, he admits that I am popular and now he says that no one takes me seriously. How is this possible? One can tell that Jake’s thought patterns are not coherent. My conversion story is mine and obviously not scripted. It is foolish to call a life experience “dull” as if it were a play or movie scene. Life has its many courses and I don’t consider each course “dull.”
I used to be an atheist. I cannot hide this fact. The mere fact that I attract so many atheists shows that they can relate to me. I am the only one who can engage them in a way that they are used to. This is because I know how they think and how they will respond.
<<I read up on them, got a catechism and read it, etc. I loved how the Catechism is set up with citations and explanations of why Catholics believe.
With a quote like the one above, it’s amusing that anyone could buy such a shamelessly invented story. We’re supposed to believe that while he couldn’t see an iota of logic from any other religion on the planet, the one that dresses up in the most absurd clothing and participates in some of the silliest rituals in existence is the ideology that brought him in contact with “god”. Just thinking about how many times he had to repeat that to himself for it to sound reasonable, makes my head hurt. Had he ended this idiocy here, his credibility might have been salvageable. Unfortunately, his determination to make others believe he was actually an atheist led him to construct a final part to his transformation, which is a magical adventure for the whole family.
However, I never stepped foot in a Catholic building. This came way after when this random lady approached me and called me “father.” I was dressed like an urban youth from NYC and she called me “father” and asked me to pray for her daughter. This just sent chills through my spine. I did not know what to say only that I wasn’t a “father” but nonetheless went to the Church nearby with her and we prayed – or she did because I did not know the words she was using. But I did do something mentally and basically said, “Ok mister sky inter-dimensional entity, this is your chance, stop hiding.”
I felt this peace like the peace a child feels when he/she is in his/her mother’s arms – nothing matters anymore, no worries, no stresses, just this never ending peace that fills you inside and you literally feel like you’re glowing. That’s when I realized that there is something about this God stuff that is for real. I was not “stimulated” by emotions, music or a social gathering as with the Evangelicals. I was with this lady in a dark empty Catholic building, no music, just the random car horns from traffic outside echoing. God made the move.
To add to to the “chills,” the lady stepped to the vestibule to get “holy water” and I went after her a few seconds later to ask her name and observe this act and she was not there. I stepped outside and no one was around. Either she ran like Flash or was transported to the Enterprise because she just vanished. I know she did not leave because I would’ve seen the sunlight enter as the front door opened, but no such thing happened. Those doors were the only exit and entrance.
Well, that just settles it. Only a true, skeptical atheist would come up with a story as rational as this one. I can’t imagine how unsettling it must’ve been for Sac to find out that the old lady was actually Batman. He also takes the time to explain to the reader that, “I would’ve seen the sunlight enter as the front door opened“. Checkmate, atheists. His powers of observation are not to be questioned, nor shall you analyze whether or not any of this garbage happened at all.>>
It is obvious that Jake is ignorant in religious history and history in general. Catholicism is the largest religion on Earth. It is the most diverse religion and has built western society as we know it. The Catholic Church instilled values and ideas that societies use today. Without the Catholic Church we would not have universities, hospitals, science, art, music and other things which we take for granted today. The Catholic Church founded universities, hospitals, funded scientists and scientific projects as well as musicians and artists. It is absurd and uneducated to describe the Catholic Church in the way that Jake has. Only someone without enough education in history would make such ridiculous statements about the Catholic Church.
In a sense, atheism as we know it today developed from Catholicism. Had not the Church educated the people in philosophy, certain individuals would not have risen up and asked questions, even of the faith.
Moreover, Jake doubts my story regarding the lady at the Catholic building. He claims that it is invented and its details are not “rational” and so forth. My question to Jake is: Since when have life experience’s been subject to rational explanation in order for them to be reality? Life takes many turns in its course, some that make sense and others that do not. There is no way one can measure life events via rationalism. This is a non-sequitur. Jake is obviously aloof to what life is and is ignorant to the fact that life does have is mysterious aspect to it. No one on Earth is born knowing how to steer the course of life, nor do they know how to engage life and its consequences. It is immature of him to judge my life experience for this very reason.
Lastly, I did not mention this in my blog post because I did not want people to read a book, but there were cameras at the vestibule of the church building. My entrance as well as the entrance of this lady was captured. However, her exit was not captured on camera, but mine was. Perhaps the saying “The Devil is in the details” rings true about now.
<<It is funny though, that for being a former atheist, Sacerdotus seemingly comes up dry when talking to other atheists. Common sense would dictate that if he was such a strong disbeliever, it would take a mind as great as his in order to convince other atheists why his religion is the right way. Tragically, he seems to be just as clueless as any other theist on Twitter. If Sacerdotus was an actual atheist at one point, he would be more than capable of showing compassion towards the perspective of other atheists, not to mention be able to empathize with the views we hold, as he would’ve shared them originally. Ironically, he has only ever argued like an indoctrinated creationist, and therefore I’d have to say the notion that he was ever an atheist is hereby debunked.>>
If I come up “dry” when engaging atheists, then why am I inundated with them? A simple glance at my mentions will find that over 90% of mentions come from atheists. Moreover, more atheists view my blogs than Catholics. On the popularity score site “Klout,” atheists are the ones who contribute more to my popularity score! Here is a screen shot of it:
Jake should check the #atheism feed and realize some people are missing. Some atheist tweeters have approached me privately regarding conversion. I do not know where Jake gets his idea that I do not convince atheists. Moreover, the mere fact that atheists flock to me shows I am having an affect. Birds flock around you only when you have food. Atheists flock to me because I am feeding them knowledge and truth. Many atheists follow me on twitter and other social sites. I get invited to speak at secularist clubs at universities. Twitter, Facebook and my blogs are not my only social arena. I do public speaking as well.
While atheists such as Rubicondior rely on twitter and blogs, I am free to present my thoughts, knowledge and words in the real world. After ordination, this ability will increase even more.
I have shown nothing but respect and compassion to atheists on twitter. During my first days on twitter in August of 2011, I was even threatened by two atheists in Florida. Jake seems to be confusing me for someone else or perhaps he has fallen victim to the fabrications posted by other atheists. I try my best to make myself available to those atheists who truly want to learn and find answers. This is why I made the Rationally Faithful blog. However, some atheists just want to tweet on twitter and engage in silly discussions where they send me comical photos or use sarcasm in order to dilly dally. I cannot waste time on these people. If they truly want answers, then they must either send a message to #sacerdotus or contact me via my blogs.
If that is not enough, I have even invited the most vocal of atheists on twitter to debate me so all can see our debate and learn. Most run away like Rubicondior who made a fool of himself this past summer of 2012. My intention with debates is to present both sides clearly so all can read. Perhaps atheists or even believers might have questions a debater might bring up and it is answered during the debate. However, it is difficult to find educated and honest atheists who would engage me in a debate. Most resort to childish name calling, insults and other nonsense.
<<As for him pining away for an honest debate, I’ve yet to see any proof of that. He has a wonderful track record of tactical evasion when it comes to debate requests. An ever growing list of excuses grows by the day as to why he won’t go anywhere but his own webpage. Worst of all, is that he is in denial about it. He wants everything to go his way, to prevent any incidents that might be out of his control from occurring. When asked repeatedly to select any other site than his own for a debate, he has refused every offer; immediately followed by a request of his own to go to his website out of some misguided notion that it’s not fair to him to speak anywhere else. Even when asked objectively to debate somewhere neutral to both parties, he deflects the question and tries to assert without knowledge that it would be unfair, such as when asked by this person:>>
A simple visit to my RationallyFaithful blog will show honest debates. Again, I do not know where Jake gets this information that I engage in tactical evasion. He must be finding this in a Cracker Jack box because it is not reflective of reality. I have made my intention clear as to why I use my blog. As stated in the previous reply, I want seekers to have a static place where they can read an organized coherent debate without having to bounce from tweet to tweet or blog to blog. I understand the fears of debating on someone else’s “turf;” however, others have done it already and do not have any complains. Blogger does not allow blog owners to edit comments, wordpress does. This is why I rely on blogger for debates. Those who debate me can freely comment – granted no vulgarity and ad hominem is used – and know that their comments cannot be edited and will remain there permanently.
I have also made it clear that after any initial debate on my blog, I will visit any other blog and debate there granted the rules are fair and the debate is coherent. Jake and others are simply afraid to debate me for obvious reasons. They do not possess the education necessary to counter my arguments. However, I have offered to debate less prepared individuals at their level, they refuse.
I go into more detail here: http://www.sacerdotus.com/2013/02/the-fear-to-debate-me.html
<<As you can see, he has clearly evaded the point of the question itself. Even without knowing WHATforum the person was talking about, he has already dismissed it as not neutral. Only a person who is afraid to tread outside their comfort zone could possibly be this paranoid about the setting of a debate before even being offered a place.>>
I am not sure what Jake is referring to here. Any website that has the ability to edit or remove comments is not neutral, this is a no-brainer. Again, once the debate takes place on my blog, I can go elsewhere. What is the excuse now Jake?
<<Even when he does engage someone with a point, Sacerdotus is not known for his willingness to accept facts. He’s not even willing to incorporate other people’s opinions, for that matter. Unfailingly, the overwhelming majority of URLs and “evidence” he has to provide are simply links back to his blog. Why? Because he wants hits, and the only way to accomplish this is to drag people to his page, in the hopes that they’ll see something there that makes some sense, and return. He has sunk to this trick so often now, that ALL of his links return to his pages, where he recycles the same posts incessantly. This charade is meant to promote the idea that he has done his homework, and prevent him from stumbling over his own arguments. If he doesn’t have to repeat a lie, he assumes he’ll never get caught in one. Unfortunately, if you have a webpage designed to tell people why others are “afraid to debate you”, you’ve already exposed yourself as spineless:
This is probably the most ridiculous statement in Jake’s writing. I use nothing but facts and demand citations. I will listen to other people’s opinions but am not bound to incorporate them. Why would I? I prefer observing the facts instead of another’s inference. The URL’s Jake mentions address whatever question I am forwarded. I do not have time to repeat things that are already on my blog. My blog posts have links to studies and other resources. Jake’s complaint about my blog shows sophophobia. My “afraid to debate you” blog explains why I use my blog, why atheists do not want to debate me, and evidence of their reluctance. It has nothing to do with being “spineless” for as you see, I am not afraid to engage any atheist.
<<What have we learned from this? Well, you should probably not call yourself an avid debater if you’re so quick to deny an invitation to every f****n’ debate you’re offered, especially if you’re given the choice of going anywhere except your own website. Secondly, claiming you once represented the demographic of the people you are debating is not an effective tool for argument if you only know how to argue from the side you “converted” to. As an atheist, I am insulted and disgusted by the way Sacerdotus throws out one-liners and catchphrases designed to make himself seem well-articulated when discussing atheism. All he has ever proven is that he sounds like a resentful single on the ChristianMingle dating site. Exhausted, defeated, and grasping at straws, he has made every conscious effort to point the finger at everyone else for not wanting to play by his rules. Quite possibly most embarrassing, is his inability to provide any evidence that he hasn’t already touched. Even the least skillful opponents of atheism know that you should at least include some sort of third-party source of information to back up their claims. Sacerdotus refuses to do this. All of his links are his, and he will take you to his site to show you his claims, and back them up using links to his website to show more claims, that link to other pages of his information. Seeing a pattern? This doesn’t make him a scholar, or a researcher.>>
This is another ridiculous statement by Jake. There is no doubt that he has not visited my blog or even take the task of reading my words and my sources. Had he done this, he would not have posted this ridiculous rant based on distortion and ignorance. My blogs are academically licensed. I always use third party sources when presenting a particular concept or topic. Moreover, I have never refused to debate anyone. As I write this, I am also on Facebook replying to Protestants who invited me to their Facebook group. I am not the problem in regards to reluctance, atheists who message me are. Like Jake, twitter atheists only seek to berate and troll believers. This is why they get suspended by large numbers. Twitter knows they are abusive and remove them from their service. Jake’s own post is evidence of this behavior. Instead of engaging me on a particular topic, he takes time out of his schedule to write a long rant about me. He even believes the lies Rubicondior posts about me regarding a child. When I ask him if he verified Rosa’s claims, he ignores and blindly believes them. He is obviously not a skeptic. Perhaps he is unemployed or just does not have any other occupation that is meritorious or self improving, who knows..
<<This makes him an overt narcissist.
I don’t owe any respect to this cretin. He is the worst type of person to argue with, but more importantly he is the person least likely to give you any sort of sliver of useful knowledge. When he is recruiting, he is obnoxious and loud. When he is debating, he is dishonest and evasive. When he is defensive, he is malicious and a hypocrite. If you don’t know Sacerdotus, you’re fortunate. For the rest of us, he is a constant reminder that all it takes to garner support for religion is volume, belligerence, and repetition.
Since Sacerdotus will undoubtedly never admit to any of this, and will oppose any idea that comes his direction by showing you another link to his website, I encourage people to link him here. Repeatedly, in fact. Maybe for once, looking at a single webpage all the time will grant him some clarity, rather than feed into his constant vacuum of egoism.>>
How can you respect others if you have no self-respect? This is an age old maxim in many societies throughout the world. The mere fact that you take time to write fabrications about me shows your character to be unstable, angry, and lacking integrity. In patriarchal societies, you would not be deemed a man. In any event, I understand your frustration and need to use a blog to vent your inability to engage me intellectually and request social support from your atheist enclave.
Jake mistakes intellectual confidence for egoism. I am not promoting myself on Twitter or elsewhere. If this were the case, I would be using my legal name, not a pen name. Jake lacks the critical thinking skills to realize this and hence, why he becomes frustrated to the point of posting diatribe instead of engaging me intellectually. I am 100% honest, perhaps too honest. I am not a hypocrite and lay out my specks and logs for all to see. With them, I build crucifixes to hand out.
If I have come across too blunt or abrasive, then I apologize. My only intention in that presentation is to show why it is not necessary to approach theists in said manner. My online presence is meant to promote the Gospel via the Catholic Church and nothing more.
Perhaps Rubicondior, Jake and other atheists have confused me as attempting to participate in the circus found at #atheism. I am not a part of that social enclave, nor am I interested in ridiculous rivalries.
May I add that the need for both Rosa and Jake to write on me is flattering and also helps promote me. 🙂