I do empathisize with her frustration at devious anti-science religious agendas, though I think that vicious name-calling is to sink to their level. Where appropriate, call their ideas "ridiculous", call their behavior "despicable", but personalized insults are merely fallacious ad hominems that can weaken one's argument.
In response to the video of Lee Strobel's interview of Anthony Flew, she says in Lee Strobel is a sick fucktard: "Watch how the theistard nitwit exploits an old man to further his crackpot, vile, despicable Jesus agenda."
I responded there but decided that I want to emphasize parts of my comment by posting it here rather than just burying it there:
"Several things irritate me about religionists: illogical thinking, scriptural regurgiquoting, and their tendency to resort to crowing ad hominem attacks and assorted fallacies of logic in place of facts.
I think that creationist appropriation of Anthony Flew in an emotional attempt to pander to theistic sensibilities (emotionalities not sensible abilities) is despicable.
The video could be used in a course on how *not* to conduct an interview if you don't want to lead a witness. (I grant you that this is exactly what Strobel wanted to do.) Talk about leading questions!
Flew comes across as sweet and fuddled, but he does stick to the parts of his position that he has thought out.
Flew's getting confused about the questions for which he was not prepared merely makes Strobel look worse and renders Flew's shift of philosophy less credible. They certainly induced him to demonstrate that his book writing days are long past.
However, I think that "sick fucktard" is a little strong. (You can't imagine how little I like defending creationists.)
They show their predictably poor judgement by *not* editing those segments out. But what more could you expect from mythoholics?
I imagine that the religionist nutters, like anonymous above, are doing the rounds posting their fake loving platitudes and apologies for nefarianism."
I just coined 'nefarianism', though someone has probably beaten me to it. Anyway, it's meant to signify an -ism based on a preference for nefarious tactics. It struck me as highly appropriate in this context because it is downright subversive to take advantage of failing faculties. Disgusting behavior. Disgusting.