Wednesday, August 22, 2012

@RosaRubicondior Sore Loser

A sore loser always talks trash after he/she faces utter defeat.  Rosa Rubicondior is no different.  

After being defeated in a debate, Rosa began posting all kinds of things that bring to light her obvious poor mental state. 

She is in denial and is projecting her behavior on me by claiming that I refused to debate her when I flooded twitter with my request that she follow through with the debate and not bow out.  She instead replied with ad homem and stalled until she forfeited and was declared the loser.  

Rosa Rubicondior asked me to comment on her blog and here it is piece by piece.  My words are in black and hers are in blue:

***Debate: Is There Scientific Evidence Only For The Christian God?
( )

<<Terms and conditions
The topic for debate will be the proposition that:

There is verifiable, falsifiable, scientific evidence for only the Christian God for which no possible natural explanation can exist.>>

Sacerdotus replies:

This is a stall tactic.  My rules were clear about providing evidence alongside coherent reasoning.  There is no such thing as the "Christian God."  God is God.  God does not belong to any religion or any one.  The God of Christians is the God of Muslims, Jews, Atheists, Hindus, Skeptics, Pagan, Buddhists etc etc etc. 

<<This debate will take place between the proposer (the person calling himself @Sacerdotus) and myself. It will be conducted according to the following rules:>>

Sacerdotus replies:

Again, I specified the debate was solely between you and I.  This was nothing new.  

<<The proposer will supply an agreed scientific definition of the Christian God against which the proposition can be tested, precise details of the evidence and how it can be verified, how it could be falsified and how it establishes the truth of the proposition beyond reasonable doubt. Failure to do so will be regarded as conceding the debate.>>

Sacerdotus replies:

This makes no sense whatsoever.  The evidence can only be tested in a lab or CERN.  I seriously doubt you have access to this.  What you are asking is beyond your means.  Remember I asked you if you had direct tactile and visual with evidence that indicates evolution occurred or if you read of it from a third source?  You conveniently deleted that comment for the obvious reason that you never have had direct tactile and visual evidence of evolution.  (see for the comment:  


<<A neutral referee will be agreed. The rulings of this referee will be final and binding on both parties to the debate. The referee will rule on:>>

Sacerdotus replies:

A referee for what?  You chose a non-denominational Lesbian minister who I debated with in the past and who blocked me just like you do when I'm winning.  How is that fair? 

This is just a stall tactic. Moreover, the debate was my idea and I had set the conditions already.  You cannot impose your will on a debate that you did not initiate.  Had you invited me to your blog, then yes you have every right; however, I invited you and therefore you must respect the rules and conditions that I established or just refuse to debate like Dawkins refused to debate Craig.  The latter would not have been as embarrassing as the stunt you pulled off with all the lying and stalling.  

<<Whether an assertion of fact has been validated with verified evidence.
Whether questions have been answered fully, honestly and without prevarication.
The meaning of words, when these are in dispute.
Whether an argument was ad hominem or not.
Any other disputes when requested by either of the parties to the debate.
Whether a referral to the referee was mendacious or an attempt to prevaricate, divert or otherwise obstruct the normal flow of debate.
The referee may intervene at any time to declare the debate won, lost or drawn.Should either party fail to provide evidence for which a claim of its existence has been made, the debate will be considered lost.>>

Sacerdotus replies:

Common sense dictates that this referee would have to be an expert on the respective fields from which the evidence derives from.  ie, if I use physics, he/she must know what I am talking about.  No one can learn physics overnight.  The rest of these that you list could have been done by us without any other party.  You and I are adults.  My rules touched on your criteria already.  Again, you were stalling.


<<Making any claim which is shown to be untrue or unsupported by evidence will result in forfeiture of the debate.>>

Sacerdotus replies:

This demand is a bit extreme because you would have lost by default.  Your position rests upon proving a negative.  How can you provide evidence for the non-existence of something or someone?

<<Ad hominem arguments will result in forfeiture.>>

Sacerdotus replies:

Rosa, you would have forfeited immediately.  All you do is post ad hominem arguments.  On Twitter you had a ad hominem free-for-all.  Your tweets were ridiculous and made you look foolish.  I think a lot of people lost respect for you.  This is your doing, not mine.

<<Failure to respond to an reasonable point, answer a reasonable question or to supply the evidence requested within three days (subject to notified periods of absence) will result in forfeiture.>>

Sacerdotus replies:

I reply immediately unlike you who never does.  I gave you the opportunity to start with your opening statement first and you beat around the bush.  Your own friends then told me to start first and I did.  I posted my opening statement and we all waited for you and again you stalled until you forfeited.  You disappointed your Atheist friends.   

<<The debate will take place across two blog sites; this one and @Sacerdotus' own blog. Each party will make it clear which point is being addressed. A record of the entire debate may be published in full at the discretion of either party.>>

Sacerdotus replies:

I initiated the debate and was clear that it would take place on my blog.  It is wrong of you to make demands if you were not the originator of the proposition to debate.  Bouncing from blog to blog would have made it confusing for us and our readers.  

As I expected, though I hoped not, Sacerdotus would not accept these terms and conditions nor was he able to establish the proposition despite his boasts that he could produce scientific proof of the Christian god's existence. Perhaps his definitions of the meanings of the words 'scientific' and 'proof' are private ones and not those used by normal people.>>

Sacerdotus replies:

There were no terms to accept because you agreed to MY debate.  I sent you the link which had all the rules and conditions.  You cannot impose your rules on a debate you did not originally propose.  You are wondering now what evidence was going to be presented and that is your fault.  Had you had the confidence in your Atheistic reasoning to continue with the debate, you would have been in awe of the evidence presented.  You are dealing with a science guy here, not the fundamentalists you bash on your blog.  This was why you backed away.  You knew I would take you on heavily and destroy your poor reasoning.      

<<Eventually, I posted this proposition in his blog and invited him to refute my assertion that he would not be able to establish it's truth.>>

Sacerdotus replies:

You cannot begin a debate with a proposition. You need an opening statement.  How can the audience know your premise and how you will defend it?  

<<He then went into what looked like panic-stricken denialism and posted some 20-30 tweets on Twitter demanding I reply to his blog, and despite repeatedly being given screen-captures of my reply. He even created at least three new accounts to RT his hysterical tweets.>>

Sacerdotus replies:

There was no panic or denial on my side and everyone saw this.  I sent tweets to remind you and everyone that your response was expected.  You kept stalling and I had to remind you that you needed to be professional and continue with the debate.  Instead you went on twitter and began posting nonsensical tweets and inviting your Atheist friends to attack me - another stalling tactic.  

One of them even said that you were busy with family.  I question this because you had time to tweet, but not for an opening statement; therefore, you were not busy with family.   

I never created any accounts. You lie about this.  It is you who have another account:

<<Eventually, the overwhealming consensus of people who responded to my tweet asking if I should continue was that Sacerdotus clearly had no intention of debating honestly and seemed not to understand the basic rules of debate. The whole ploy had been disingenuous from the outset, hence his fear of holding it on neutral ground with a neutral referee and according to agreed rules to prevent prevarication, diversion and the other traditional tactics of Christian apologetic sophistry.>>

Sacerdotus replies:

You contradicted yourself.  You say I sent 20-30 tweets and now say I had no intention of debating.  You even posted a screen shot of my activity during the debate!  How foolish can you be to say I was not interested in debating when those 20-30 tweets were reminders to you to post your opening statement so we could continue.  

Are you ok in the head Rose?  This is not normal behavior.   There was no need to worry about the debate being neutral or not.  Your choice as referee is questionable.  You chose a non-denominational Lesbian minister who I debated with in the past.   Who do you think she would side with?  

You wanted to create your own playing field but failed and backed out because you were afraid to debate me.  Anyone who has the intellectual confidence to debate would do so with anyone, in any place and in any time.  A man can sleep on a bed or floor; only a prissy man requests his comforts.   Your accusations of prevarication are based on prejudice.  You assume what is not true and that is unfortunate.  A debate does not exist to please the debater, nor is it a venue to give comfort to either side.  

What you asked for is like Obama requesting his teleprompter for his debates with Romney.  You cannot script your own debate Rosa.  Therein lies your phobia and your utter defeat.  If you are prepared to defend your premise, then there would be no need of any third party.  Your own arguments would hold their own weight.  Obviously, you were not confident in your reasoning and needed a safe environment to debate me.

I don't understand what you are paranoid about.


<<If 'Sacerdotus' has the integrity to leave his blog up, this may be read here. It is not a pretty sight.>>

Sacerdotus replies:

I told you I had no intention of deleting anything.  I even told you to go to a site where you can store documents:

Again you were stalling.

You are correct.  A vocal Atheist blogger stalling during a debate is not a pretty sight.  On your blog you present yourself as a rational person who is intellectually superior to religious people.  However, on my blog, you became a weak pusillanimous uneducated individual who does not have the intellectual confidence to even present a premise and defend it.  Your actions have seriously damaged your reputation.  

<<One can only assume that Sacerdotus was fully aware that he could not support his claim and had decided that his 'faith' can only be defended with these sorts of tactics of deception. One wonders at the mentality of someone who knows they are pushing a lie but never-the-less is prepared to go to these lengths to 'promote' it in their own deluded way. One can only assume they are getting something out of their phoney piety in terms of the behaviour, opinions and attitudes they can blame on it. Or maybe it's just the hope of an easy living from the life as a parasite on the gullible and vulnerable. >>

Sacerdotus replies: 

This makes no sense.  Why would I provide an opening statement if I was not going to defend it?  You are projecting your behavior on me.  You never posted an opening statement at all.  The audience was left wondering what you would be arguing for and how you would provide evidence for that argument.  Instead you posted ad hominem.  You exposed yourself as fraud and troll.  I have the screen shots, tweets saved and they are memorialized on my blogs and a video. 

<<Whatever the motive, there is clearly no belief that a god of honesty is watching his every move and taking note. The abject abandonment of intellectual integrity is too profound to support that view. It never ceases to amaze me how people are prepared to drag their 'faith' through the gutter rather than to back down and admit that it is baseless. Clearly, their precious ego is much more important than the god they purport to believe in>>
Sacerdotus replies:
Rosa your denial is so evident in your post.  While I started a blog, posted my opening statement, you attacked me, stalled and yet I'm the one who has abandoned my intellectual integrity?  
  • Are you not aware that the world can see your tweets? 
  • Are you not aware that many have retweeted them and they will forever circulate the globe despite you deleting them?  
  • Are you not aware that I took screen captures of them and made a video of your failure to defend Atheism?   
You destroyed Atheism without even arguing for it.  I thank you for exposing the stupidity that Atheism espouses.  You have converted many to God with your nonsense.     


  1. And you're a liar who censors comments. Try again, silly delusion freak.

    1. How so? Every thing is documented. If you fail to see this then you are delusional.

  2. You are an appalling liar.

  3. Everything is documented. Spare us the nonsensical comments.

  4. Someone should get out of the sandbox and stop playing and go take a nap now. (Just an observation).


Thank you for reading and for your comment. All comments are subject to approval. They must be free of vulgarity, ad hominem and must be relevant to the blog posting subject matter.


Catholic Church (759) God (406) Atheism (343) Jesus (342) Bible (310) Jesus Christ (286) Pope Francis (230) Atheist (228) Liturgy of the Word (192) Science (152) LGBT (146) Christianity (139) Pope Benedict XVI (81) Rosa Rubicondior (79) Gay (78) Abortion (75) Prayer (66) President Obama (57) Physics (53) Liturgy (52) Philosophy (52) Christian (50) Vatican (50) Blessed Virgin Mary (44) Christmas (43) New York City (41) Psychology (41) Holy Eucharist (36) Politics (34) Women (34) Biology (31) Supreme Court (30) Baseball (29) NYPD (27) Religious Freedom (27) Traditionalists (24) priests (24) Space (23) Health (22) Pope John Paul II (22) Racism (22) Evil (20) First Amendment (19) Pro Abortion (19) Protestant (19) Theology (19) Christ (18) Death (18) Apologetics (17) Astrophysics (17) Child Abuse (17) Evangelization (17) Illegal Immigrants (17) Pro Choice (17) Donald Trump (16) Police (16) Priesthood (16) Pedophilia (15) Marriage (14) Vatican II (14) Divine Mercy (12) Blog (11) Eucharist (11) Gospel (11) Autism (10) Jewish (10) Morality (10) Muslims (10) Poverty (10) September 11 (10) Easter Sunday (9) Gender Theory (9) academia (9) Human Rights (8) Pentecostals (8) Personhood (8) Sacraments (8) Big Bang Theory (7) CUNY (7) Cognitive Psychology (7) Condoms (7) David Viviano (7) Ellif_dwulfe (7) Evidence (7) Holy Trinity (7) Spiritual Life (7) Barack Obama (6) Hell (6) Hispanics (6) Humanism (6) NY Yankees (6) Babies (5) Cyber Bullying (5) Gender Dysphoria Disorder (5) Massimo Pigliucci (5) Podcast (5) Pope Pius XII (5) The Walking Dead (5) Angels (4) Donations (4) Ephebophilia (4) Pope Paul VI (4) Catholic Bloggers (3) Death penalty (3) Evangelicals (3) Pluto (3) Pope John XXIII (3) Baby Jesus (2) Dan Arel (2) Eastern Orthodox (2) Encyclical (2) Founding Fathers (2) Freeatheism (2) Oxfam (2) Penn Jillette (2) Pew Research Center (2) Plenary Indulgence (2) Cursillo (1) Dan Savage (1) Divine Providence (1) Fear The Walking Dead (1) Pentecostales (1)