F Rosa Rubicondior: Debate: Is There Scientific Evidence Only For The Christian God?

Monday 20 August 2012

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

Watch expelled seminarian @Sacerdotus panic and run as he realises he's been exposed as a fraud by making claims he couldn't substantiate in free debate:

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.

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

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.

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:
  1. Whether an assertion of fact has been validated with verified evidence.
  2. Whether questions have been answered fully, honestly and without prevarication.
  3. The meaning of words, when these are in dispute.
  4. Whether an argument was ad hominem or not.
  5. Any other disputes when requested by either of the parties to the debate.
  6. Whether a referral to the referee was mendacious or an attempt to prevaricate, divert or otherwise obstruct the normal flow of debate.
  7. 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.

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

Ad hominem arguments will result in forfeiture.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Eventually, the overwhelming 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.

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

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.

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

[Further Update]
As a rather sad footnote, it seems my challenge to @Sacerdotus and his laughably infantile attempts to make excuses for running away from it seem to have pushed him over the edge psychologically. I'm not a psychiatrist so I don't pretend to understand the processes involved but I suspect I undermined his one remaining claim to a degree of importance in the fantasy persona he believed he had constructed on social network sites like Twitter and Blogger. With that gone he now has to come to terms with just being ordinary again. It's a shame he sees no value in that.

The last few weeks, when @Sacerdotus, who turns out to have been a failed trainee Catholic priest called Manuel de Dios Agosto from Bronx, New York, who left the St Joseph's Franciscan seminary, New York in mysterious circumstances some time after entering it sometime after 2003, became increasingly bizarre in his claims and behaviour, have culminated in some of his many Twitter accounts being suspended. His increasingly bizarre and irrational claims have included claims that I am a paranoid schizophrenic, a child abuser and a terrorist in whom the FBI have an interest. His blog now includes a picture of a typical modern English house which he claims is mine provided by his 'contacts' and a claim that 'the authorities' have been passed a file he's compiled on me. I assume his 'contacts' are as fictitious as his other claims of multiple degrees, impending priesthood, etc.

Needless to say, the house bears no resemblance to mine and his claims are pure fiction, the product, so it would seem, of a deranged and psychotic or immature mind. And all because I challenged him to substantiate his claim to have scientific proof of the Christian god. I obviously blew his cover in a big way with that simple challenge.

Perhaps the biggest lesson here is the rather obvious one; that those who profess piety and identify with religious belief often do so as a cover. There can be little doubt from his blog, his tweets and his actions, that Manuel no more believes in a watching god of truth who requires it's followers to be honest and to behave well towards others, than I do. The difference being that I don't believe Atheism frees me from responsibility to be honest and to behave with integrity and respect towards others.

On the other hand, Manuel, whose upbringing has been steeped in the belief that one has to behave well to avoid eternal suffering, and for no other reason, seems to have concluded that Atheism for him means freedom to abuse and take out his anger for his failure on others. It's a shame that loss of 'faith' for so many former Christians seems to mean loss of the control that fear once had on their latent psychopathy. This control may be one of the few benefits of religion but it surely can only be needed for those damaged by religion in childhood in the first place.

I wish Manuel well and hope he gains the self-esteem he so obviously lacks at the moment. Maybe just trying to be a decent person rather than trying to get away with pretending to be something he so obviously isn't, would help.

[Further Update] Manuel is still after five months, constructing ever-more elaborate and deranged fantasies about me, including claims to have written letters to 'UK Authorities' detailing reports from his imaginary UK 'contacts'. It's almost as though he's living out his fantasies through me, including lurid tales of stalking New York school children. One can only hope that these remain fantasies.

Surely there must be someone in the Bronx Catholic Community who can arrange for him to get the psychological support he clearly needs, even if they are ashamed of him and embarrassed by his bizarre behaviour. Aren't they at least partly responsible for the mistake of accepting him as a trainee priest in the fist place?

Here is the account in a New York Catholic newsletter of his entry into the Franciscan Seminary in 2001 (when the site was archived), about three quarters of the way down. Use your browser's search facility to find Manuel de Dios Agosto. Needless to say, there is no record of him ever graduating or being ordained as a priest, despite a later even more bizarre claim that he was about to be promoted to a cardinal and invited to Rome to advise the Pope. He also fraudulently claims to have his own ministry, funded by online donations - something unheard of in the highly centralised Catholic Church.


Thank you for sharing!

submit to reddit


  1. This debate seems silly to me. God is not an entity that is subject to scientific evidence. God is an experience that you either have and recognize or don't have (or at least don't recognize.) To debate the existence of God as if God is a newly discovered planet is to miss the whole point of what God is.

    If your goal is to show that the immature fundamentalist understanding of God or the Bible is logically flawed, then big deal. That is pretty obvious. This debate may tell you a lot about the fundamentalist with whom you are debating, but it tells you absolutely nothing about God.

    The theologian Paul Tillich described it like this:

    "I do not want to criticize any of the creative activities of the secular mind, the sciences, the arts, social relations, technical activities, and politics. These disciplines have their own criteria and their leaders apply these criteria with severity, honesty and self-criticism. In all this the secular mind is mature and religion should never interfere with it, as mature science would never interfere with religious symbols, since they lie in another dimension of experience and reality. To discuss the existence or nonexistence of God as a being alongside other beings betrays the utter immaturity on both sides. It betrays complete ignorance about the meaning and power of the divine." (The Eternal Now by Paul Tillich, Chapter 14.)

    1. "God is an experience that you either have and recognize or don't have"

      In other words: you felt funny one day and hence God. Nice one.

      The ravings of a lunatic.

  2. Roger Sessions.

    Don't worry. Sacerdotus appears to be certain he has some scientific evidence for the Christian god so it shouldn't be nearly the problem for him you seem to fear.

    I would be interested though in how you know about this god by non-scientific means.

    1. Rosa Rubincondior,
      I'm not worried about Sacerdotus. I'm worried about the people who might fall for the logical falacy of the "falacy falacy." The falacy falacy is the falacy of assuming a proposition if false because the logic used to argue the proposition is logically flawed.

      As to your question, how do I know about this God? I only know because I experience a strong connection to a larger beyond. I seem to share this experience with many other people. Some of us use the word "God" to describe this experience. Some of us find the Bible gives us a better understanding of this shared experience and how this experience is calling to us and working in our lives. It is possible that this shared experience is simply a hallucination, but given how widespread and how consistent it is, it appears that we are experiencing something real. But this experience is not clinically describable and certainly not scientifically provable. It simply "is."

    2. The fallacy fallacy only applies to a specific argument, that is to say we would not want to assume that a claim is wrong simply because one argument does not demonstrate it, because there might be another argument that does demonstrate it.

      If there are NO arguments or evidence that can demonstrate a claim then that is sufficient evidence to to suspect that the claim is untrue while leaving open the possibility that there may be evidence to change our mind in the future.

      The god of Tillich is no god at all in my opinion, atheism is a rejection of god as an real entity. Tillich treats god as a cultural expression or symbolism. He may call us ignorant but I personally think that taking the relativistic position that a discussion of god's existence is meaningless because what is really important how that belief impacts a person emotionally is quite frankly silly.

      Tillich falls prey to an ivory tower approach to theology, few rank and file believers treat god as an emotional experience or symbolic ideal. They believe there is a real being who really created the universe.

      By the way, there are reasonable psychological explanations for peoples experiences of god to say that this topic is beyond scientific inquiry seems incorrect.

    3. The fallacy fallacy is merely an attempt to shift the burden. In effect, it's saying, "I may have used fallacious reasoning but that doesn't prove my claim is wrong. You have to do that or I can claim it's right".

      It doesn't work like that, though I can understand people who know their claim is untrue and or their reasoning is fallacious wishing it did. In fact, if the argument is fallacious the claim has not been established and we are entitled to take the use of a fallacy into account when we are assessing the validity of the claim. After all, if the claim is true, why was the reasoning fallacious in the first place and why couldn't valid reasoning be found to support it?

      Sorry, but shifting the burden of proof doesn't establish a claim; it merely underlines the disingenuous nature of the argument and the moral cowardice of the claimant.

    4. Dylan Walker: "atheism is a rejection of god as an real entity".

      No, atheism is lack of belief in such an entity.

    5. "atheism is lack of belief in such an entity."

      Not it isn't, or Catholic priests going through "trials" will be part-time atheists.

      Atheism is a rejection of silly beliefs in such an entity.

      If you cannot say without reasonable certainly then you're agnostic, and a fool.

    6. I'm with Andrew on this one.

      I don't believe in any gods because I have no evidential reason to - which makes me an atheist.

      Show me some definitive evidence for any in particular and I will accept the evidence, therefore I accept the theoretical possibility of gods - which makes me agnostic.

  3. I cannot wait to see how this pans out. No doubt @sacerdotus will be eligible for a Nobel when he successfully proves the existence of the Christian God. It will be exciting to witness him dismantle the myriad arguments that heathen "scientists" put forth for the non contingency of a deity, and then make the perfectly logical leap to proving that deity is in fact the God of Abraham, and not one of the other thousands of gods that misinformed people made up in the 6000 year history of our universe.
    All sarcasm aside, this should be hilarious.

  4. Are you meaning to link Sacerdotus twitter in in your OP ?

  5. If @Sacerdotus challenged you to the debate, he is the one who must make the terms, not you. He had posted the link on your other blog and you have yet to post an argument: http://rationallyfaithful.blogspot.com/2012/08/debate-rosarubicondior-vs-sacerdotusr.html

    1. The terms and conditions are perfectly fair and specify precisely what Sacerdotus is claiming. I'm sorry you feel you need to excuse his cowardice.

  6. Rosa, I invited you to debate me, I have the say on how it is conducted. It was my idea. There is no need for this fanfare. Please stop the stalling attempts.

    Once you accepted the debate, I immediately made a blog posting specifically for us to post on and have been waiting over 24 hrs for your first argument. I even posted the link here so you would not claim that I never sent it to you on Twitter. I've done everything, now it is your turn to step up and present your arguments. I was polite enough to give you the first shot to an opening statement/argument.

    This is not a boxing match, there is no need for a referee. I want a simple debate that everyone can read and make conclusions from without having to deal with "fillers."

    All I ask is for you to keep your comments free of vulgarity, ad hominem and stick to the topic. Your arguments should be coherent and not be all over the place.

    We all live busy lives and understand if it may take a day or so to reply on the debate. The winner will be the one who successfully provides a strong argument for/against God.

    1. Sacerdotus

      >Rosa, I invited you to debate me, I have the say on how it is conducted. It was my idea.<

      And I have accepted.

      What is it about the terms and conditions which is making you afraid? Are you maybe afraid you won't be able to provide the evidence to the satisfaction of a neutral referee, the fact that you won't be able to prevaricate, divert and obfuscate or otherwise use apologetic tactics over substance or is it that you know your claim is false you won'r be able to substantiate it?

      If you have the evidence and you are sure your argument is sound, you should be leaping at this chance to prove it beyond doubt.

    2. I am not sure how closely you folks are following academic debate etiquette. But typically the person who answers in the affirmative offers the first argument. A proper title for the debate would be "Does God Exist?"

      Currently you have two questions, "Can it be proven that God does exist/Can it be proven that God does not exist?" Which leads to contradictory answers and therefore it is impossible to determine who should give the first argument.

      In contrast, with "Does God Exist?" one will answer yes, and the other will answer no. The person who answers with the affirmative gives the first argument. So I am confused about why you are asking Rosa to send the first argument.

  7. Stop stalling and just go to the proper venue please: http://rationallyfaithful.blogspot.com/2012/08/debate-rosarubicondior-vs-sacerdotusr.html

    1. Just have the courage to accept the perfectly fair terms and conditions, or explain why they are unacceptable, then we can begin.

      Once we have agreed a neutral referee you may post your opening statement in accordance with these terms.

    2. Again, this is not a boxing match. There is no need for a mediator. You post your argument with evidence and I post mine. It is a simply format. It was my idea and I posted the rules already. You must comply or forfeit. I posted my opening statement already. I even gave you the opportunity to post first and you did not take advantage. You have 23 hours to post or be declared the loser.


  8. Have you both agreed to the same terms? It doesn't seem that way to an impartial observer.

    1. I posted the terms on my blog which she agreed to: https://twitter.com/RosaRubicondior/status/237472676111867904

      Now she is trying to impose her rules on the debate. It is not fair. She cannot invite third parties nor try to move the debate to her blog when this was my original idea and she agreed to my terms.

      She is a guest on my blog and must be polite and not impose her will on how my blog is run.

    2. I am a Christian apologist. I have taken opposition to Rosa in several different instances. But I find this behavior bizarre. You are refusing to debate, except in that specific forum. I do not see why it matters where the debate takes place. I have had discussions using twitlonger. It really does not matter where it takes place. What matters is the content.

      Having said that, your demand for Rosa to make the first move is unjustified. In a debate, the person who takes the affirmative makes the first move. Yet you are literally counting down the hours for her to make a case against Christian theism, lest it be considered that she lost the debate.

      Considered that by who? Certainly not by me, and I say that as a fellow apologist. So in summary, there are two points that need to be dropped. 1 - The venue (literally could not matter less). 2 - The demand for Rosa to make the first move.

      However I do think that the rules of this debate as proposed by Rosa are malformed. You guys need to come to a fair resolution. But if you are truly interested in having a debate and going through the arguments, drop the temper tantrum about the venue and drop the demand for Rosa to make the first move.

      I tell you all of this, Sacerdotus, because I am rooting for you.

    3. I understand your point, but I want this to be a simple debate where all can read the responses and evidence and make up their own minds. I offered Rosa the first opportunity to post but she stalled. So... I posted the opening statement and am waiting for her to post her's so we can officially begin.

      She instead is tweeting on Twitter all kinds of ad hominem nonsense and getting her Atheist friends to flood my mentions - further stalling.

      I am the originator of the debate. I provided the venue, link and rules and Rosa agreed. To come out of left field with a referee and all this nonsense is obviously a ploy to get out of debating me.

      Rosa knows that I am not the fundamentalists she bashes. I hold degrees in the sciences and have numerous of times refuted her claims.

      She is making a fool of herself on Twitter and it is unfortunate. I was expecting to find a true challenge in her. So far she has been dilly dallying.

    4. Sacerdotus.

      You have the right to reply to the concluding points I made in the blog above.

      After that, you are too dishonest and disingenuous to be taken seriously here again and you will not be welcome.

      Thank you for helping me to discredit religion in general and your 'faith' in particular. I hope you eventually develop the emotional maturity, personal integrity and self-respect to feel some shame at the dishonest tactic you felt you needed to try.

    5. I am glad you are accepting your defeat well. It takes a lot of courage to bow out of a debate, kudos to you! Or Cheers as they say in your land. :)

      A lot of people were looking forward to this debate, but unfortunately you with your childishness and stalling tactics disappointed us all.

      I was never dishonest nor disingenuous. The evidence is on Twitter and my blog. I even made a music video of it. :)

      You accepted to debate me and read the rules. It is unfair of you to impose your rules that would have favored only you. You even chose a third party to get involved - a Lesbian non denominational minister who I debated with in the past: how is that fair?

      Hopefully after you prepare better you can try again to debate me. I am and will always be confident to defend my premise. I even told you to invite Dawkins and others to team up against me. :)

    6. I'll just leave your comment here as a tribute to your almost complete detachment from reality and your ludicrously over-optimistic assessment of your own ability and importance. It looks for all the world like a case of Dunning-Kruger Syndrome - something which has often been noted before.

      The proposition which you ran away from remain to be refuted. You were unable to show that "There is verifiable, falsifiable, scientific evidence for only the Christian God for which no possible natural explanation can exist." If failure to establish your proposition in a debate through cowardice and unwillingness to engage it is victory then I wonder what defeat looks like.

      The main feature of the 'debate' was, as most people who commented noted, your abject cowardice in refusing to accept the perfectly reasonable and fair rules, and in your desperate rush to claim to have won, even doing so before you had given me chance to see your phoney 'challenge' let alone respond to it. I assume your tactic was to hope the simpletons you normally try to fool were too stupid to know about time zones or that other countries outside the USA existed.

      The most noticeable thing for me was your infantile behaviour and complete disregard for even the pretence of honesty and integrity and your very obvious awareness that truth an honesty were never going to be your allies.

      What pride you can have in your 'skills' at dishonesty and deception is a mystery for me. If I had opinions which I knew could only be defended and promoted that way I would try to change them. The task for an honest person is to be right, not to trick others into believing something you know to be a lie.

      Thank you again for you help with showing what a nasty little thing Christianity has degenerated into as the tool of the spiv, the cheat and the parasite which is used to take advantage of the vulnerable, the lonely, the credulous and the ignorant. It also shows how the memetic parasite or religion can corrupt the mind of its sufferer and provide it with excuses for any depth of dishonesty and depravity for the benefit of the parasite at the expense of its unfortunate host.

      Your further participation in this blog is unwanted and will be unwelcome. You have shown yourself to be morally bankrupt and devoid of sufficient integrity to be taken seriously.

  9. Sacerdotus

    Your infantile abuse has been removed.

    I realise it's asking something you find difficult even when you're not faced with the ignominy of having been exposed to the world as a charlatan yet again, but could you at least try to behave in a grown-ups and civilised manner here.

  10. If there is no evidence for any type of Gods, then there is no evidence for Abrahmic God too ( Jews + Chrstian + Islam ) ... It is as simple as that


  11. Debating a theist is a waste of time. I have spoken.../:

  12. Dear Rosa Rubicondior, I want to tell you that if you try to stop writing one day and if you try to stop thinking that God doesnt exist just one day, I can garantee that you will have your ears and eyes ready to be surprised by God... let him be near to you, let his sweet love be near your heart just one day...

    1. Dear (understandably) Anonymous

      You forgot to present the evidence for your god which would have helped your comment to be taken seriously and not just the delusional, sanctimonious guff of someone who uses condescension and a pretence of superiority to help them feel better about themselves.

  13. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    1. Manuel.

      You far to obvious attempt to post abuse and spam anonymously has been removed, as I warned it would be. Can I suggest you seek therapy?

  14. I completely see where you are coming from on this one Rosa, I decided to reply to this character's blog about "The one question that destroys atheism."
    Not only did he claim that he was using science (physics specifically- which is my field of work) but when pointed out that his science was plain wrong, he backpedalled and ignored it saying it was merely 'thought experiment'.
    When I looked at his argument from a logical standpoint based on his argument alone, he wrote it off as a strawman (without specifying why it was a strawman) and then wanted me to address the question he posed directly, despite the fact that I already had.

    In closing, you certainly did the right thing by not wasting your time with this 'debate'.

    1. The chance to 'waste my time' would have been something. In fact, it was Sacerdotus who panicked and ran away, making every excuse he could think of for not accepting the challenge.

      Sacerdotus (Manuel de Dios Agosto) has since psychologically deteriorated to the point where he seems almost completely detached from reality and spends most of his time inventing fantasies about me and the amazing story about how he defeated me in the debate he ran away from.

      He seems to use his blog and Twitter much as a deranged people use their windows - to shout abuse at strangers and rant at the world about how great he is in the hope that someday the world will believe him.

      Quite a sad story really.

    2. In response to "Faith Debate" and "RosaRubicondior," I know "sacerdotus" - whose name is Michael - and can testify that his use of physics to explicate the existence of God is indeed compatible. There are many books written on the matter.

      After examining your responses to him, it is evident that it is you who are not up to date on physics. The problem I see is that you assumed Michael was presenting a lesson in physics - he was not. He applied information theory to a scenario that can prove the existence of a programmer (God), if you will. Anyone with adequate reading skills can gather this without issue. The strawman is derivative from you sir, not Michael.

      In light of this obvious absence of understanding semantics, one can see without a shadow of doubt why neither you nor Rubicondior engage him in a debate and instead resort to personal attacks to substitute for your lack of intellectualism. Only a fool would accept your take on the situation.

    3. Hello again Manuel, aka 'Sacerdotus'.

      For how long have you been under the delusion that you are 'Dr. Harrison' - or are you hoping the readers of this blog will be stupid enough to believe you are?

      Have to give you a small amount of credit for imagination though, if not for any intelligence behind your far too obvious ploy.

      Has it never even occurred to you to be honest, or did you learn to dispense with that before you were expelled from St Joseph's Seminary, New York?

    4. By the way, Manuel, If you ever find the courage to substantiate your claim that you have scientific proof for the Christian god by presenting the evidence you claim to have and explaining how it meets the criterion there is verifiable, falsifiable, scientific evidence for only the Christian God for which no possible natural explanation can exist you are still free to do so in reply to my blog Proving Your God Should Be Simple which has been up for almost 18 months now and which you have been strenuously running away from and pretending you haven't noticed it.

  15. Good job, Rosa. It's always nice to trap a fraud in his own deceit.

  16. He has been sending me messages saying that you are "abusing children." Why is he saying that?

    1. Because he's a deranged pathological liar who finds it impossible to distinguish between his psychotic fantasies and the real world.

      He also writes letters to the 'UK Authorities' and the FBI detailing my 'terrorist activities' which his 'contacts in the UK' are reporting to him.

    2. Well that is insane. I do not know if the UK has a 'defamation of character' law. But certainly there must be something that you can do, people cannot just publicly say for no reason that you are abusing children, a terrorist and that kind of thing. Maybe you should consider telling the authorities.

    3. Manuel is much more valuable to me as a deranged psychotic. It's people like him crawling all over the Internet which is, partly at least, responsible for the huge growth in Atheism in the last 10 years or so.

      No sane person believes him and besides, a plea of insanity might well succeed as his defence. No point in suing a destitute, unemployed and unemployable, mentally unstable simpleton who couldn't even afford his plane fare over to defend himself.

    4. Even if it is a disreputable person saying it, people do not tend ignore charges like abuse of children. He told me exactly what happened, that you accidentally messaged somebody on twitter, which he somehow conflates with child abuse. If it is ever the case that these bad rumor spread to your employer or something like that, I would happily testify for you, to them, that he is a liar. If that ever happens you can reach me at richard(at)thereforegodexists.com

    5. My employment status is not a problem :-)

      Thanks for your offer of support.

  17. @Th0mas_Anders0n8 February 2013 at 22:03

    It might be interesting to note that its impossible that he entered the seminary in 2000, because he tweeted once that he enjoyed watching the XFL (Extreme football league) when he was a "kid". It only aired on television in the US for one year, 2001. Lets say "kid" means 10 yrs old. That would make him 23 now. This is speculative, of course, since "kid" could mean 8 or 12...

    1. Which actually places it some time between 2001 and 2003 because the announcement of his acceptance was archived in 2003

  18. so did the debate happen?

    1. Of course not. The last think Manuel de Dios Agosto was interested in was a fair debate. It was only ever about driving traffic to his blog because he couldn't make it interesting enough for people to read it otherwise.

      Since then he has been challenged many times by other people to debate in a neutral venue. The result is invariably the same - either they are ignored or met with a series of abusive tweets on Twitter; the challenge is never accepted.

      'Sacerdotus' is typical of someone suffering from narcissistic personality disorder. He spends his whole day trying to get someone to take him seriously and recognise his 'genius' and hating the world for not recognising it. In former times he would be standing at his window shouting abuse at strangers in the street. Twitter has become the modern equivalent, for people like Manuel.

      It's said that there is a crazy on every block in New York.

  19. I came across this link via Twitter and I have some questions.

    Rosa, do you have evidence that Sacerdotus is "Manuel?" A link to an article is not proof of anything. Do you have an ID number? Can you provide documentation from this seminary stating that he belonged to it and was released?

    I have read online in multiple blogs and facebook that you are abusing a child, so I'm hoping that you are being serious about this accusation. Posting a child's information is not wise to do. You could get into a lot of trouble for that.

    1. Hello Manuel.

      Posting here whilst claiming to be banned, which you know is technically impossible, eh?

    2. Excuse me? I am a woman, not a man. Can you please answer the questions that I've posted? Thanks.

    3. > I am a woman, not a man.<

      Of course you are Manuel.

      How are your other fantasies coming along? Have any of them become real yet?

    4. This was the best thing I have ever read in a long time. It is so easy to spot Manuel in his attempts to be someone else its almost cute.

  20. Why are you avoiding my questions?

    From my previous comment:

    Rosa, do you have evidence that Sacerdotus is "Manuel?" A link to an article is not proof of anything. Do you have an ID number? Can you provide documentation from this seminary stating that he belonged to it and was released?

    I have read online in multiple blogs and facebook that you are abusing a child, so I'm hoping that you are being serious about this accusation. Posting a child's information is not wise to do. You could get into a lot of trouble for that.

    1. Don't worry Manuel. The way the vote is going you'll be ignored from today, as the majority seem to think you are an infantile fool who should be ignored. I'll of course defer to their experience and judgement in these matters.

      Have you any plans for getting the attention you crave if others follow this decision?

  21. Wow. This guy has serious issues. I think he needs to be reported to the authorities or we'll end up hearing about "what he did to those poor children in his cellar", and that would be a bad thing (praise the Lord).

  22. To the webmaster:

    It has come to our attention that you are mentioning our institution and claiming that said individual on your blog post was expelled. There has never been any student in our program with this name. The information on this post is completely fabricated. I ask you to please remove all references to our seminary and find other ways to deal with your situation with whoever you are having issue with. Call our rector for any questions.

    1. If anyone is wondering how Manuel de Dios Agosto posts comments looking like they come from someone else, it's very simple.

      You open a comment form and select Name/URL as the preferred option. Then you put the Twitter ID of the person you are impersonating in the Name box and Twitter.com/ followed by the same name in the URL box.

      So, if you want your comment to look like it came from, to take a random example, Manuel de Dios Agosto, the expelled seminarian, habitual liar and internet abuser, you put Sacerdotus in the Name box and Twitter.com/Sacerdotus in the URL box. It will look for all the world to the uninformed like Manuel has posted the comment.

      You can even do it to pretend to be a friend of Manuel's giving him some advice.

      The give away is that there is no mechanism for logging on to Blogger using a Twitter account so a Twitter address can ONLY be entered this way.

      It is dishonest and underhand of course - the sort of thing a psychopath would do to harass and try to alarm people he is currently stalking, so I wouldn't want decent people to do it.

    2. Almost forgot:

      Go away Manuel. No one believes you any more.

  23. These comments are hysterical! Good job, Rosa, keep it up :)

    1. The one I particularly enjoyed was Manuel pretending to be St Joseph's Seminary (sic) but the only thing he could think of complaining about was the suggestion that they would ever have accepted Manuel as a trainee in the first place. It almost made it believable. It certainly made me LOL for real.

  24. Oh, man... this guy's really one for the psychology textbooks. I'd love to have him as a case study.


Obscene, threatening or obnoxious messages, preaching, abuse and spam will be removed, as will anything by known Internet trolls and stalkers, by known sock-puppet accounts and anything not connected with the post,

A claim made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Remember: your opinion is not an established fact unless corroborated.

Web Analytics