No True Scotsman

I was looking at Exodus 22:18-24. This speaks of certain things that are forbidden.

Verse 18 declares that the punishment for witchcraft is death. Verse 19 declares that the punishment for bestiality is death. Verse 20 declares that the punishment for idolatry is death. Verses 22-24 declare that the punishment for "afflict[ing] a widow or a fatherless child" is death.

In between all that, verse 21 says "Thou shalt neither vex a stranger nor oppress him, for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt." Clearly this is against racism and xenophobia, but unlike the other verses that surround it, there's no mention of the punishment.

I've heard a lot of Creationists claiming that evolution is faked, that it is a lie. They do occasionally back up these claims with sources of dubious reliability, but I don't think I've ever heard anyone answer the question: Why? What could anyone possibly hope to gain by faking evolution? To what end is evolution faked? What, quite simply, is the point?

Macroevolution is just the end result of many stages of microevolution. That being the case, to claim that one can happen and not the other presupposes that there are natural barriers between species across which evolution cannot occur.

Such a supposition must have evidential support, otherwise the claim that macroevolution cannot happen would be mere circular reasoning, so, what is this evidential support?

If there are no circumstances, please say so, but I know there are some people around here for whom that's not true, and I'm just curious as to what their criteria are for considering outright fabrication or willful misinformation justifiable.

Ecclesiastes 3:18-19 says: "I said in mine heart concerning the estate of the sons of men, that God might manifest them, and that they might see that they themselves are beasts. For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath; so that a man hath no preeminence above a beast: for all is vanity."

If the Bible says that man is the same as an animal, why is the fact that 'evolutionists' say the same thing one of the most often used ways of pouring ridicule and scorn on evolution?

Atheism encompasses:-

→So-called 'strong' atheism: the assertion that there is no god.

→→Related to, but not the same as, explicit atheism: atheism having considered the possibility of god.

→So-called 'weak' atheism: the lack of assertion of anything about god.

→→Related to, but not the same as, implicit atheism: atheism without having considered the possibility of god.

→Agnosticism, which can be further divided into:-

→→Being noncommittal about the existence of god (modern usage)

→→Assertion that it is impossible to know whether or not god exists (traditional usage).

→→(Though not all agnostics are atheists.)

→Theological noncognitivism: the assertion that religious terms such as 'god' don't really mean anything.

→Antitheism: active opposition to theism.

To say nothing of the fact that atheists are probably irreligious but may be antireligious... or may not!

Is it really justified to claim that all atheists have anything at all in common?

Does freedom of religion mean you have the right not to have your religion questioned or contested? Or the right to whine when it is?

Or does it just mean you have the right to believe it without being thrown in jail or burnt at the stake, have the right to protection from physical harm motivated by religious hatred, and have the right to practice your religion so long as it doesn't break the law or infringe on others' rights?

Why is the latter not enough for some people? Why -should- religion be above question, to the extent that some believers go on a smear against those of us that do question, calling it 'hateful' and 'intolerant'?

All this time I had thought certain people were lying about what atheists believe and what they want, but now I'm having doubts about that, and I think these people genuinely believe what they're saying. The definition of atheist seems pretty simple to me, but is it actually quite hard to understand?