Saturday, November 25, 2017

Invitation to Debate: Will Pusillanimous @atheismnthecity accept?

Recently, an alleged atheist on Twitter messaged me after my account tweeted a scheduled tweet promoting my book Atheism Is Stupid.  A follower of mine replied to his/her tweet and this was how I was made aware of the existence of account @AtheismNTheCity. My filters are on so I only see tweets from people I follow.  AtheismNTheCity is unknown in the religious/academic debate square.

Afterwards, he/she sent a link to a post with 13 reasons he/she believes makes a strong argument in favor of atheism.  I responded by refuting them which triggered Atheismnthecity to attack me personally and claim that his/her content was never refuted.  See:

Despite other atheists calling him/her out on his/her disastrous post, he/she insists they are irrefutable.  I challenged atheismnthecity to a formal debate on either YouTube or Rationally Faithful and to date, he/she has not followed through. 

So I will now again invite him/her to formally debate me and will have my global audience as my witness.  I will be waiting for atheismnthecity to accept by commenting on this post, Rationally Faithful or by emailing me.  He/she will have a week to respond.  If atheismnthecity lets the week pass then this means he/she does not wish to debate me formally and this will prove that his/her reasons cannot be defended and that he/she is incapable of debating.   

All he/she has to do is follow through with the requirements below which screen candidates for a formal debate based on proper credentials:  

For formal/informal debates, or to continue a discussion go to this blog:

Terms+ for debates and/or discussions:
  • Must be genuine requests to debate and not attempts to draw attention to yourself or to create drama.
  • Opponent must have an accredited college degree and a strong grasp of philosophy, science and religion. Proof of degree must be presented via university records that match the identification of opponent. 
  • Requests/Acceptance must be posted on General Comments first.  After a request/acceptance is posted, planning can be done via email, phone or text.
  • Must be on the blogs Rationally Faithful.  Some debates may be done live on Sacerdotus Radio or Sacerdotus Hangouts*
  • Must be planned in advanced.
  • Must be on a specific topic(s) related to God, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Theology, Bible, Catholicism or other topic selected by Sacerdotus.
  • Opponent must not demand/request images of myself or private information either via video, photograph, ID card or any other media; static or live. My image & identity are irrelevant to the topic that will be debated.
  • Opponent must not make any other demands irrelevant to the debate.
  • Claims must be backed up with evidence or references.
  • Debate Cannot be reproduced on any other forum or media.
  • Debate Cannot be sold, rented or distributed in any form.
  • All debate content will become property of Sacerdotus/Rationally Faithful. Opponent may use his/her own content, but not the entire debate content unless written permission is given.
  • Opponent must be able to fit available time slots.
  • No other parties can get involved.

*Any debates on Sacerdotus Radio/Sacerdotus Hangouts must be planned by Sacerdotus ONLY.
+These terms can be amended at any moment without notice.



At first, it seemed as if alleged atheist @AtheismNTheCity was going to follow through with the debate, but unfortunately, that was not the case.  He/she messaged me on Twitter with full knowledge that I do not monitor Tweets. I assume he/she did this believing that my lack of awareness of his/her tweet equates to me avoiding a debate.

He/she claimed to have emailed me but I did not see anything in my email for this site. Then I noticed that he/she emailed me on Rationally Faithful.  This person does not know how to follow directions. This invitation says to email me on or post on the Rationally Faithful site.  In any event, I saw his/her email and he/she seems to be backing out by deflecting and stalling.  No surprise.  Here is the email. I blacked out his/her email for privacy reasons:

Notice that he/she is engaging in the same tact as previous alleged online atheists.

1).   Refuse to provide proof of identity and academic credentials.

2).   Claim that my academic credentials are fake despite the URL login session present etc.

3).  Whine about copyright ownership

I expect AtheismNTheCity will back out from formally debating me.  If he/she is reluctant on providing evidence of his/her identity and academic credentials then this means he/she has something to hide (troll identity and lack of academic credentials).  His/her puerile behavior may be an indication.  Look at how he/she has no regard for the disabled and is overly emotional and easily triggered. This shows he/she is not logically centered, only emotionally centered.

I will wait to see if AtheismNTheCity will follow through or will run away whining about the requirements of a professional formal debate.  He/she is messing with the big boys now. So he/she has to man up and step up his/her game or go home.  There is no crying in baseball and there is no whining in debating.


AtheismNtheCity has forfeited and has been declared the loser by default.  I tweeted this earlier:

AtheismNtheCity responded to my email with the same stalling. It is clear that he/she is hiding something from not being able to present identification and academic credentials.  See the emails and my replies:

Despite forfeiting, I gave atheismnthecity another chance to follow through by December 2, 2017. Let us see if he/she musters up any courage or continues forfeiting.  I do not believe he will be able to follow through because this will reveal that he/she is just another poser and troll who lacks academic credentials. 



  1. Let's see if he/she wants to debate, or will back up like Michael Sherlock and company.

    1. He/she claims so in his/her posts, but to date, no formal response here, Rationally Faithful or my email. It looks like he/she will be backing up just like Michael Sherlock and company.


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)