Reply #112: vey

[cuke]

You seem to be the only person having a problem divining the intent of that rather obvious phrase.

"Well, I'd say terms like evangelical atheist and fundamentalist atheist are ad hominem terms and don't actually mean anything - but what the hell do I know, I'm just an atheist. It's a strawman to assert that I say it is okay to criticize religion but it's wrong to criticize atheists. I believe I posted that it is a two-way street."

So the words don't have meanings? They are not adjectives which modify the noun "atheists"?

It's obvious that those phrases are meant to limit what follows to those atheists that are evangelical or fundamentalist, and not to those atheists who are not.

"Well you can't really call it a call to action if you can't divine any intent - as you say. I think all we can do is remain agnostic about what the poster actually meant by it."

You are getting ridiculous here. I expected better than "words have no meaning". "All religions should be condemned" has a very simple and obvious meaning. Please use your imagination and explain how this could possibly mean anything other than "All religions should be condemned"?

"No, it was a quote from who I thought was Voltaire (but I was mistaken). If you really think I was trying to call people to action to strangle priests with the entrails of politicians, well...I've got a bridge you might be interested in..."

Well, now you're just being disingenous. I didn't say that was a call to action, because it's OBVIOUS (you seem to be having a problem with the obvious) that it was not meant to be a literal call to action. However, it is obvious that is also not a criticism, but an attack. Specifically, it was an "argument from authority" which is considered a Logical Fallacy.

But maybe it was meant to be flattering. Yes, choking with human entrails. Makes me all warm and fuzzy. I guess Voltaire liked religion. (Is that what you're trying to say?)