Saturday, March 5, 2016

Atheist Author Michael Sherlock Afraid to Debate Sacerdotus

Many so called atheists out there love to make themselves appear as experts in many fields. They arrogantly parade themselves online believing to hold the answers that refute God and religion.  These believe they can stump any theist.

However, many of these have encountered me and ran off afraid to engage me in a debate. From 'Rosa Rubicondior' whose real name is Esther Harrison

to Dan Arel see:

to David Viviano see:

and others; these self-proclaimed 'experts' in atheism and 'leaders' of atheism have challenged me and ran off out of cowardice after experiencing what I am capable of.

Well we can add another charlatan to that list. His name is Michael Sherlock who portrays himself as an atheist author.

This time, he invited me to debate him. I usually invite atheists.

Here are the tweets he sent me:

I accepted the invitation and asked him to email me to set it up:

He even claimed that I would back out:

I told him that I do not back out and was waiting for him to contact me since he said he had free time during a semester:

I asked him to email me to set the debate up, he never did:

I pressed him on it asking if he got cold feet:

His reply showing his stalling:

I replied:

I press him to follow through with the debate again since February was approaching:

He replies again stalling making excuses:

Once again I press him to follow through with the debate:

He replies again stalling and making excuses:

I press him again to be professional and follow through:

Once again he stalls, makes excuses and resorts to ad hominem:

It is March 5th 2016 and no response from Michael Sherlock to set up the debate.  He wanted to debate me in February 2016!  Once again, another alleged atheist wanted to debate me and then runs away like a coward.  I asked him when, what time, asked him to email me to set it up and he stalls and makes excuses.  Finally, he attacks me saying I am rude just for following up on a debate he invited me to!  Go figure that one out!  

Michael Sherlock is clearly a coward and lacks the intellectual confidence to debate me.  He and other Atheists know that they cannot defeat me in a debate.  I know their arguments better than they do as a former atheist; how to refute them and have degrees in the sciences and philosophy.  

We have another one to add to the list who is afraid to debate me. You do not need 'Sherlock' to know that this guy is scared of me.  :-)


  1. I thoroughly enjoy reading your work. I must say though, many of your comments seem boastful, and maybe sometimes a little rude. This entry is an example. After Michael asked you to be patient, you persisted in what could be conceived as harassment. Regardless of his reasons, he may truly not have been ready to debate, and your persistence could have just turned him off from speaking with you. It seemed as though you had an ax to grind with Michael. A simple reply with a thank you for the invitation to debate, and that when he was ready, to reach out to you may have gone much farther.

    Calling Michael and other atheists whom you have debated cowards, and lacking intellectual confidence does seem to be harsh. In my debates with Atheists, the moment I feel myself debating for the sake of being right, is the moment I know I have gone too far. And I need to bow out or change my strategy. Jesus knew He was right. He knew that understanding we must eat His flesh and drink His blood was going to be a tough pill to swallow, and that He would lose followers. He let them go. It wasn't about being right.

    1. Thank you for your comment. It is, unfortunately, running on a strawman premise. There was no rudeness nor boastfulness present in any of my messages. It is absurd to think that typed words convey emotions. I am not sure how you can determine this without personal interaction. Moreover, it is also absurd of you to even dictate what happened during this time when you were not even present. You overstepped your abilities there. Only God is omnipresent and can read hearts, not you nor myself. Michael is a known troll. He has messaged me before and wanted to instigate during this particular interaction. He invited me to a debate and then did not want to follow through with it. In other words, it was his idea, not mine. I, being a busy person was obviously vetting his intentions by asking him to be professional. There is nothing wrong with this. If a doctor tells you to make an appointment with him to treat an illness and you do not follow through. He or she will contact you to do a follow up. Moreover, calling atheists who run away from a debate cowards is just a description of reality. What else would you call them? This is not harsh. It is a description of what happened. If you debate with people with the intention of not presenting your side as correct, then you are not debating. You are just wasting your time. The purpose of debate is to show the opponent's side to be nonsense or erroneous. If you follow political debates, you will notice this. The opponents try to argue their side is correct. This is how debate works. Bringing Jesus into this is also silly. Jesus was not born to be a apologist. He was born to redeem man. You are running with a false conflation fallacy. It seems to me that you simply jumped to conclusions with this post. You assumed things that have no basis in reality. There is no ax to grind with Michael. How can there be? He invited me to a debate and I followed up on whether or not he wanted to do it. How is this an ax to grind? Your criticism is uncharitable and based on assumptions. Michael was never interested in an honest debate. He is a troll and was instigating an online drama scenario in order to get attention since I am well known as an apologist who atheists fear. Next time, please learn the facts surrounding what I post and you will understand what is really going on. This post is meant to show others what these trolls do. It is not an ax, nor an attack against anyone. The truth of the matter is that there are individuals who present to be intellectuals, but instead, want to troll and cause drama. This post highlights this via Michael's false intentions. I used to be an atheist and know their tactics.

    2. Sacerdotus, it seems to me that this person attacking you may be a sock puppet or even this Michael character himself trying to bait you again. Either this or the person clearly has poor reasoning skills and is bent on making you look as the "bad guy." Anyone with basic reading skills can tell that you were simply following up on an invitation and the author was stalling. Look at the time that passed since he invited you to a debate. You had every right to follow up on his request to debate you. To assume you as boastful and so forth is nonsensical.

  2. Wow...OK, you thank me for my comment and then go on a tirade against me. That is not charitable. If you believe so, you are sadly mistaken. Nothing I posted could be considered a strawman argument as I never refuted comments that were not advanced by you. You say typed words can not convey emotion. If that was remotely true, they would not have the power to hurt anyone emotionally. You could not be more wrong in your assessment.

    Now, I never needed personal interaction between you and Michael since I never commented on anything you did not already convey. And since I could only know what you conveyed, I stand by my original comments. You were rude and boarded on harassment. Again, that is based on what you wrote. It is a description of the situation as you unfolded it.

    Regardless of whose idea it was to debate, Michael asked you to be patient. Those are your words. You then regal us with your replies that as I said before border on harassment. When someone tells you to essentially stop, you should stop. Regardless of his reasons. Maybe he was scared of debating you, perhaps he was truly busy? You were not there. You were not present, and that makes you unqualified to comment on the situation and call Michael a coward or comment on his intensions.

    I have often found, that taking the stance to prove oneself right to those of no faith is to lose common ground. Everyone has a method of debate. No one is right and wrong in their approach. Many times I am just very happy to be discussing my faith with a non believer. Charity, compassion and understanding go a lot farther. I can attest to that.

    No need to flex a superiority complex you have in regards to telling me to learn the facts about what you post. You were an atheist once, and you continue to argue as one. Harsh, uncharitable and without compassion. And that description is based on your comments and nothing more.

    By the way, I am a very learned Catholic and follow many apologists. I stumbled upon this site accidentally when searching for news on Father Corapi. Until then, I had never heard of you.

    1. What tirade? With all due respect, you seem to be overly sensitive with things or have a problem with perception. My comment was just that, a comment in response to your comment. If it did not sit well with you, then that was not my intention. I can only reply to what is presented to me. Everything you have posted is based on a strawman. You completely misunderstood the post, the course of events and the intentions of both parties. Moreover, you assumed many things. Typed words do not convey emotions. That is just not possible with syntax and semantics. This is why we use punctuation marks so as to better convey to the reader what a specific sentence states and how it should be interpreted. For example, "He is mad." and "He is mad!" One makes a basic statement describing and event, while the other makes the same statement, but adds emphasis. As for people being hurt by writing, what is actually happening is that people are being affected by the content of the writing, not the writing itself. When we read things, this stimuli is processed in the brain. The brain uses a variety of channels in order to process the stimuli. Prior memories, emotions, cultural values, defense mechanisms, heuristics and so on are part of this equation. Psychologists call this the schema. It is clear to me that you are not well read on the matter. Again, I state this as an assessment, not an insult or anything else (I know you will perceive it as such based on your previous comments). I would invite you to do some reading on it or take courses on psychology. I hold a degree in it (I state this as a simple fact, not to boast).

      Moreover, to claim that you do not need personal interaction between said parties in order to truly understand what happened is just nonsense. This is why in court only eye witnesses or experts are allowed to testify. Attorneys do not just choose random people to testify as to what happened in a particular case. They use people who were actual witnesses to give their accounts, or experts who have a strong grasp of their field. That being stated, your assessment on the course of events is based on your perception, not what actually happened. Therefore, you should not try to force your perception of the event as fact. This is intellectually dishonest. To suggest I was rude and engaging in harassment is extremely silly and beneath you. How can one be rude and engage in harassment by following up on a request to debate? Look at the time that elasped between the invitation and my follow up (Dec 3, 2015 and Jan. 7, 2016). I trust that you can do the math and count the days. Note his response to my message: "I have not heard from you via email. Did you get cold feet?" He wrote, "Grow up. I have a very busy life. This may be your main event, but it is certainly not mine." If you paid close attention, the one who was rude was Michael. He tells me to "grow up. I have a very busy life." If this was true, why would he invite me to debate in the first place? This is where he shows his intention. He really did not want to engage in a debate and was just trolling. Describing him as a coward and so forth was simply done in order to explain the reality of his actions and empower Catholics and others on my Twitter feed to not be apprehensive with alleged atheists. In a sense, I borrowed from Elijah's facetious tone against the priests of Baal (see: 1 Kings 18:25-27).


    2. If you use critical thinking skills, you will see this was the case. For you to interpret this any other way is quite frankly, disturbing. Again, you do not know this guy nor the other trolls, I do. I know how they behave and how they react. As you stated, "You were not there. You were not present." These words perfectly can be used against your interpretation. Moreover, I have over 27 converts under my belt, so to speak. What do you have? I wish you could read the emails I receive daily. Now, this is not said in a sense of competition. I am merely validating that God is working through my attempts. As for flexing a superiority complex, that is also nonsense; or perhaps, you may be flexing an inferior complex? One can look at it that way as well based on your choice of words. You are correct, I do argue in a way that may seem harsh, uncharitable or without compassion. This is because I use reason, not emotivism. Reason is free of emotion and focuses on logical argumentation and facts. Lastly, you say you never heard of me yet did after looking up John Corapi. Logically speaking, you did hear of me at that moment. Also, John Corapi is not "father" anymore. He is no longer a priest in the Catholic Church. This will be the last comment on this post. I see that you just want to engage in a back and forth battle and my site is not the place for it. This site is a site for educational purposes, not mental fencing. You are welcome to email me directly. God bless + Mary keep!



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)