David Viviano vs Sacerdotus

**UPDATE Oct 14, 2014**

It seems that David Viviano aka Gamma Atheist does not want to go through with his acceptance to debate me.  I have messaged him on Youtube's Google plus channel and he deleted the thread.  

See this video as proof that I tried to work with him, but he got scared to debate me and ran off:




*******************************************************************************


Well it seems David Viviano aka "Gamma Atheist" has mustered up some courage to debate me and I would love to do it.  It would be an honor to engage him.  However, he needs to contact me via email to discuss the details and the logistics as I do represent an institution and am not at liberty to make my own schedule etc.  

Moreover, the debate was my idea and I had told him where the debate would be (here).  This is the purpose of this blog.  I want to keep a static log of the debate for all to view anytime.  However, this does not mean a future debate cannot happen elsewhere after this first one takes place on this blog.  So in the mean time, it would be logical to hold the debate here until the other details are worked out via email for a future debate on another forum.    

The rules and layout are found on this post below.  I will wait for David to email me. This should be fun.  I hope other atheists don't ruin it with their nonsense.  

 

.@SCDTVS okay I will debate you, civilly under these terms You come on my show and on webcam
— David V (@GammaAtheist) October 7, 2014

.@SCDTVS I am accepting your invitation, and it should be no problem for you to accept and come on my show then right?
— David V (@GammaAtheist) October 7, 2014

Well I'm waiting...... @CatholicGadfly @SCDTVS
— David V (@GammaAtheist) October 8, 2014

Rules and Format for Debates:

• Both sides should provide coherent reasons supported by evidence.
• No ad hominem, vulgarity and the like.
• Arguments should be stable and not wander around.
• If an argument is not clear or is too complicated, questions can be posted within two asterisk (*) symbols. ie **What did you mean by....**
• The winner will be the one who has provided the strongest arguments.
• If any participant fails to continue, he/she will be disqualified and deemed the loser.
• No one other than the opponent and Sacerdotus will be allowed to comment on debate posts.

Format for Debates:


Opening Speech - Opponent


Opening Speech - Sacerdotus



First Rebuttal - Opponent

First Rebuttal - Sacerdotus


Second Rebuttal - Opponent


Second Rebuttal - Sacerdotus


Closing Statement - Opponent


Closing Statement - Sacerdotus

Debate Challenge To Rosa Rubicondior

Since Rosa Rubicondior lost the last debate by forfeit.  I will give him another chance at redemption.  

I challenge him to a video debate on Skype that will be broadcast on Twitter, Facebook, my blog and You Tube.  In this debate, both parties must rely solely on science in order to answer the follow:

• God, can He be proven to exist?  
• Can He be proven not to exist?

The rules are as follow:

1. Both sides must provide coherent reasons supported by evidence.
2. No ad hominem, vulgarity and the like or face forfeit.
3. Arguments should be stable and not digress.
4. If an argument is not clear or too complicated, questions can be posted within two asterisk (*) symbols. ie **What did you mean by....**
5. The winner will be the one who has provided the strongest argument and maintained logical coherence.
6. No one other than RosaRubicondior and Sacerdotus will be allowed to comment or participate.  

Format:

Opening Speech - Opponent

Opening Speech  - Sacerdotus

First Rebuttal - Opponent

First Rebuttal - Sacerdotus

Second Rebuttal - Opponent

Second Rebuttal - Sacerdotus

Closing Statement - Opponent

Closing Statement  - Sacerdotus

Stevie vs Sacerdotus

@sacerd0tus my offer of a debate on your assertion that empiricism may be used to prove the absence of the supernatural. Then we can start!
— HastonianBarbarian (@StevieBryant) May 12, 2013

@sacerd0tus what fear? I will debate you on Skype or blog and conclusively disprove your version of god, given just one simple condition.
— HastonianBarbarian (@StevieBryant) May 12, 2013

Rules:

1. Both sides should provide coherent reasons supported by evidence.
2. No ad hominem, vulgarity and the like.
3. Arguments should be stable and not wander around.
4. If an argument is not clear or too complicated, questions can be posted within two asterisk (*) symbols. ie **What did you mean by....**
5. The winner will be the one who has provided the strongest argument.
6. No one other than Stevie Bryant and Sacerdotus will be allowed to comment.  

Format:

Opening Speech - Opponent

Opening Speech  - Sacerdotus

First Rebuttal - Opponent

First Rebuttal - Sacerdotus

Second Rebuttal - Opponent

Second Rebuttal - Sacerdotus

Closing Statement - Opponent

Closing Statement  - Sacerdotus

Ms Grumpy vs Sacerdotus

@sacerdotus @mikecannytalk @prophecy_yec @logicbobomb @karlmeyer I'll debate you right now..on Twitter you coward
— Idiot Immolator (@MsGrumpy) February 25, 2013

This is the debate and its rules:



God, can He be proven to exist?
Can He be proven not to exist?



Both sides should provide coherent reasons supported by evidence.
No ad hominem, vulgarity and the like.
Arguments should be stable and not wander around.
If an argument is not clear or is too complicated, questions can be posted within two asterisk (*) symbols. ie **What did you mean by....**
The winner will be the one who has provided the strongest arguments.
If any participant fails to continue, he/she will be disqualified and deemed the loser.
No one other than Idiot Grumpy and Sacerdotus will be allowed to comment here.

Format:

Opening Speech - Opponent

Opening Speech  - Sacerdotus



First Rebuttal - Opponent

First Rebuttal - Sacerdotus




Second Rebuttal - Opponent

Second Rebuttal - Sacerdotus



Closing Statement - Opponent

Closing Statement  - Sacerdotus




****************************

Idiot Grumpy had till 12 midnight Eastern time to post an opening statement and failed to do so.  She has therefore forfeited the debate and is declared the loser.  Perhaps when she musters up some courage, we can truly debate.

Bible Reloaded Vs Sacerdotus

@yhwh_thelordgod @sacerdotus @steviebryant @rosarubicondior Yeah I already agreed to debate. We can do it on anything...
— The Bible Reloaded (@BibleReloaded) February 14, 2013

Why is @sacerdotus afraid to debate me?
— The Bible Reloaded (@BibleReloaded) February 14, 2013

***UPDATE***

"Bible Reloaded" has not countered my response in over 2 months and has therefore forfeited.  He is declared the loser of the debate.




This is the debate and its rules: 

God, can He be proven to exist?
Can He be proven not to exist? 

• Both sides should provide coherent reasons supported by evidence. 
• No ad hominem, vulgarity and the like. 
• Arguments should be stable and not wander around. 
• If an argument is not clear or is too complicated, questions can be posted within two asterisk (*) symbols. ie **What did you mean by....** 
• The winner will be the one who has provided the strongest arguments.
• If any participant fails to continue, he/she will be disqualified and deemed the loser.  
• No one other than Bible Reloaded and Sacerdotus will be allowed to comment here.

Format:

Opening Speech - Opponent

Opening Speech  - Sacerdotus

First Rebuttal - Opponent

First Rebuttal - Sacerdotus

Second Rebuttal - Opponent

Second Rebuttal - Sacerdotus

Closing Statement - Opponent

Closing Statement  - Sacerdotus

JustFole vs Sacerdotus

I'll debate you. It will be like watching a Nic Cage movie. Awful but enjoyable. @sacerdotus @dave_was_here @patman412 @nostradamnisuck
— Mouse Cop (@justfole) November 25, 2012

The above individual wants to debate me, so here we go:

This is the debate and its rules:

• God, can He be proven to exist?
• Can He be proven not to exist?

• Both sides should provide coherent reasons supported by evidence.
• No ad hominem, vulgarity and the like.
• Arguments should be stable and not wander around.
• If an argument is not clear or is too complicated, questions can be posted within two asterisk (*) symbols. ie **What did you mean by....**
• The winner will be the one who has provided the strongest arguments.
• If any participant fails to continue, he/she will be disqualified and deemed the loser.
• No one other than @justfole and Sacerdotus will be allowed to comment here.

Format:

Opening Speech - Opponent

Opening Speech  - Sacerdotus

First Rebuttal - Opponent

First Rebuttal - Sacerdotus

Second Rebuttal - Opponent

Second Rebuttal - Sacerdotus

Closing Statement - Opponent

Closing Statement  - Sacerdotus

Dave vs Sacerdotus

@sacerdotus Seriously, you debate like a child. you point to one book and say "Proof!" @nostradamnisuck @justfole @rosarubicondior
— Dave (@Dave_was_here) November 23, 2012

The above individual claims to have debated me, but no such record exists.  I now challenge him to a debate here.

This is the debate and its rules: 

God, can He be proven to exist?
Can He be proven not to exist?

• Both sides should provide coherent reasons supported by evidence. 
• No ad hominem, vulgarity and the like. 
• Arguments should be stable and not wander around. 
• If an argument is not clear or is too complicated, questions can be posted within two asterisk (*) symbols. ie **What did you mean by....** 
• The winner will be the one who has provided the strongest arguments.
• If any participant fails to continue, he/she will be disqualified and deemed the loser.  
• No one other than Dave and Sacerdotus will be allowed to comment here.

Format:

Opening Speech - Opponent

Opening Speech  - Sacerdotus

First Rebuttal - Opponent

First Rebuttal - Sacerdotus

Second Rebuttal - Opponent

Second Rebuttal - Sacerdotus

Closing Statement - Opponent

Closing Statement  - Sacerdotus


________________________________________________________________________________

UPDATE:  2 weeks have passed and the Atheist coward never showed up.  

Comment on Rosa Rubicondior vs Sacerdotus

  VS  

The debate was not what most expected; nevertheless, it is what it is.  I knew Rosa would get cold feet and find all kinds of ways to get out of the debate.

The numerous times that I corrected her blog opinions with science and how she deleted them showed to me that she just wants attention and is not serious about truth.  She is more concerned about always being right even when the facts speak against her.

This debate exposed her completely.  It is no wonder why her Atheist friends are flooding my Twitter mentions with all kinds of supportive comments, strange comments and of course, attacks.

When the shepherd is hit, the sheep will scatter and this is what is happening.  I hit the "great vocal" Atheist "Nope," hard and her blind sheep are scattered.

Some of you posted comments on the debate blog -I specifically stated not to, but Atheists are not good at reading :) - nevertheless, I started this post so that all can comment on the debate.

• All I ask is for the comments to be free of vulgarity, profanity, ad hominem, prevarication and the like. 
• Keep it simple and do not attack Rose or me. 
• I will not post any comment that does not comply with the aforementioned.

Here are the comments that were posted during the debate which I did not approve because only Rosa was allowed to post there.

The verdict is in and @rosarubicondior is declared the loser of the debate for good.  Every attempt has been made to continue the debate and instead Rubicondior resorts to ad hominem and falsely applying another's identity on me in order to distract.  It is obvious that Rubicondior is an internet troll seeking only attention and is not serious about atheism.  Rubicondior is the reason why many abandon atheism and join religion, hence why atheism has a short retention.  

Any religious individual reading this blog post should block and report rubicondior as spam.  He is nothing but a waste of time and has serious psychiatric issues.  I hope he gets the help needed.  Let us pray for this troubled soul.