Saturday, December 2, 2017

@AtheismNTheCity Afraid to Debate Sacerdotus

As expected, Mike who blogs and tweets as "AtheismNTheCity" ran away from debating me.

I gave him until today December 2, 2017, to show me his identification and academic credentials.

Every formal debate event requires that participants are properly vetted for their identities and qualifications.  This ensures that a debate is professional and that qualifying parties are present.  I hold my debates to the same high standards.  There is no way that I will engage someone who lacks academic credentials in a formal debate.  Imagine, would you debate someone on trigonometry who never heard of SIN or COS?  The entire debate would be a waste of time if you did.  Both parties have to be educated and must hold a strong grasp of the subject matter with said grasp being validated by academic credentials.

I invited Mike (Atheismnthecity) to a formal debate, see:

He allegedly wanted to debate me after I refuted his 13 reasons post and consequent replies to my refutation, see them here:

Instead of following through with the debate, he began to call me names, lie about me, stall and dilly-dally just like William Hounslow who used the fake account on Twitter and Google Plus @RosaRubicondior.  Hounslow began to stall and never posted an opening statement.  "Rosa" was banned from Twitter, FaceBook and now Google plus.  Like Atheismnthecity, he pretends to be an atheist and just trolls on social media picking arguments he cannot win.

It is clear to me that these online caricatures claiming to be atheists are not atheists at all. They are just fake atheist accounts trolling.  We cannot take them seriously.  Notice how Mike (Atheismnthecity) began to stall in his emails to me and then wanted me to send him identification. This information is already on the About Sacerdotus tab of my site. To further ensure my seriousness about the debate, I told him in a reply that I would show my identification live on the broadcast that will host the debate.  Despite this, he continued to stall until he forfeited and lost by default see:  He clearly just wanted to troll Sacerdotus just like other accounts pretending to be atheists.  I bet if I had emailed him my identification, he would have used it to engage in cyberbullying and never engage me in a debate.  This is what they do.  They love to "dox," or use the private information of Christians to harass them online.  Other Christians who are friends of mine online have faced this first hand. One professor was harassed at her work when alleged-atheist trolls called her job. Another fellow Catholic is now being threatened online by an alleged-atheist troll who claims to have his personal address.

I invite all to just block, report and ignore @atheismnthecity.  Do not give him a platform for discussion or debate.  He has proven himself incapable of an intellectual debate and has no academic credentials.  Mike tries to pass off Disqus discussions as "debates."  The truth of the matter is that comment boxes are not forums for a formal debate.  This shows how inept Mike is in regards to how academic debates work. It shows that he has no debate skills or experience.  Furthermore, I have demonstrated via my refutation of his posts how he does not understand philosophy or science. Other atheists have pointed this out to him as well.

Even one of my former professor's at CUNYstated that AtheismntheCity's reliance on the word "stupid" shows that his discussion is not intelligent. He even liked a tweet from another philosophy professor who described "Atheismnthecity" as a troll:

Dr. Pigluicci even described Mike (Atheismnthecity) as just "anyone who writes on the internet" dismissing him as insignificant and who lacks expertise in philosophy.

Mike (AtheismNthecity) was the one who messaged me.  Here is his tweet that started this all:

I had no idea that he existed. I do not understand why he would message me and ask to debate only to run away like a scared dog. It is just mind-boggling. Seems like he chewed off what was too big to swallow, so to speak! He was not expecting someone of my caliber who refuted his nonsense.

In any event, while a formal debate is clearly not feasible due to Mike's (AtheismNThCity) cowardice, inability to follow through in a debate and lack of academic credentials, he is welcomed to join me on Atheist Open Mic. He can speak his mind there on an open discussion that is not a formal debate and where he cannot present himself as a philosopher or expert in academia.

So there you go.  Another alleged atheist bites the dust and runs from debating Sacerdotus!


  1. That post is of course dishonest and full of lies. I never backed out of a debate. In fact as I wrote in my post, Sac doesn't get to demand the standards of debate. I have standards too. If someone has a reputation as a habitual liar, as Sac does, I demand he prove his identity to confirm his credentials. If he refuses to do that he has no right to make demands on me since his demands are based on the veracity of his claims.

    Sac can come to my site any time and debate me here anytime. My site is a free and open forum for anyone to challenge me. Including you.

    This easily refutes your nonsense:

    If you aren't too scared to debate me, you can send the information any time. Or if you refuse, then you must drop any requirements for me to prove who I am. Ball's in your court. Believe me there is no fear to debate such an ignorant loser. If you were serious about debate you'd have sent me the date and place for a debate.

    1. Mike Walsh, you are being silly now. You are asking me for what is already provided on my site. Stop stalling and deflecting. Everything is documented, including your very own emails. No one believes you. You see how other atheists even mock you. No one is afraid to debate you. You have given no one any reason to fear you with your poor understanding of philosophy and science. A child can refute your nonsense easily. I sit here waiting for you to provide evidence of who you are and your academic credentials. It is not rocket science. There is no fee or anything that should make you feel reluctant with complying with the debate demands. The debate is my idea and will be on my broadcast. I have every right to screen opponents in order to keep our content professional at Sacerdotus. You have no right to make demands because you are a guest here. All of your errors are refuted here in this post which has been extremely popular:

      Mike Walsh AtheismNTheCIty refuted with real Philosophy and Science

      You are clearly afraid to debate me. With each day that passes, this becomes clearer. There is no logical reason for not being able to provide ID and academic credentials unless you have none. Based on your poor replies to my posts, it is clear that you have no academic credentials and is simply an armchair blogger who posits from the point of view of ignorance.

    2. You don't get to dictate debate demands until you can prove your degree is yours. If you demand to see my credentials, I demand proof your screenshot is actually you since you're demand is based entirely on that assumption. I've never heard of anyone who touts they have "four degrees" over and over fail to show proof that their degree is real. That is perfectly logical.

      I'm debating you right now, so clearly I'm not afraid to debate you. And I came to your site. You are too chickm to come to mine. No one with a degree in physics and philosophy can be as ignorant as you are conflating eternalsim with the steady state theory, confusing eternalism with presentism, and claiming general relativity only combines space and time and not special relativity. Any physics professor/philosophy will laugh at this.

      It's clear that you only make such demands so that you can avoid actual debate. If you were serious about debate, you would have came through by now. Look at how dishonest this is:

      Sacerdotus: I demand a list of a dozen criteria that includes full ownership of the debate and if you don't comply with my every wish I will say you're too scared to debate me.

      Are you serious? This is the behavior of a child, not a serious intellectual who wants to debate.

    3. The debate is my idea and it will take place on our broadcast, therefore, the demands are mine only to give. You are just a guest on our platform. All of my credentials are posted on the about me tab on this site. I honestly do not care what you have heard and have not heard. It is irrelevant. The fact remains, my credentials are posted. We are an official ministry and have no room for fraudulent activity. Do you not realize that universities can sue for fraud? Do you not know the Church can discipline me since I am a quasi representative of her? These are serious things that you do not seem to understand. Nothing here is fraudulent. Your accusations are unfounded and demonstrate immaturity on your part. This is not a debate. Posting comments on a comment forum is not a debate. You keep demonstrating your lack of debating skills. The fact that you think a comment on a comment forumis a formal debate is laughable and makes me feel sorry for you. Moreover, you argument from straw man. Look at how you accuse me of using the steady state theory when I have never mentioned it. It shows that you do not understand what you read and misrepresent an opponent's position and points. If you fail at this here, you would do horribly in a formal debate. You also show your ignorance of physics by not understanding that special relativity is completed in general relativity with the factor of gravity. Lastly, you are quoting words that I never wrote. I never wrote: "I demand a list of a dozen criteria..." Looks like someone is pretending to be me and messaged you. I have not and will not comment on your blog. You are free to contact me on my email.


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 (754) God (405) Atheism (343) Jesus (337) Bible (307) Jesus Christ (281) Pope Francis (229) Atheist (228) Liturgy of the Word (192) Science (152) LGBT (146) Christianity (139) Pope Benedict XVI (80) Rosa Rubicondior (79) Gay (78) Abortion (75) Prayer (65) President Obama (57) Physics (53) Philosophy (52) Liturgy (51) Christian (50) Vatican (50) Blessed Virgin Mary (43) Christmas (43) Psychology (41) New York City (40) Holy Eucharist (36) Politics (34) Women (34) Biology (31) Supreme Court (30) Baseball (29) Religious Freedom (27) NYPD (26) Traditionalists (24) priests (24) Space (23) Pope John Paul II (22) Health (21) Racism (21) Evil (20) First Amendment (19) Pro Abortion (19) Protestant (19) Theology (19) Christ (18) Astrophysics (17) Child Abuse (17) Death (17) Evangelization (17) Illegal Immigrants (17) Pro Choice (17) Apologetics (16) Donald Trump (16) Police (16) Priesthood (16) Pedophilia (15) Marriage (14) Vatican II (14) Divine Mercy (12) Blog (11) Eucharist (11) Autism (10) Gospel (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) Barack Obama (6) Hell (6) Hispanics (6) Holy Trinity (6) Humanism (6) NY Yankees (6) Spiritual Life (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)