Atheists have no morals - no sense of right and wrong. Their dogma states that there is no justice in this Universe and there is no afterlife. These superstitions have been proven wrong by science.
Their morals are based on humanism rather than a "great beard in the sky" that judges them one way or the other. They judge themselves as they are judged by their peers every single day.
A person that derives his morals from a "divine entity" is more likely to do others harm in the name of said entity. Also a person that refrains from doing something bad out of fear to be punished or something good in hopes of being repaid by a "god" is not a good person at all. They are inherently selfish.
That is, however, not meant to say that religious people have no own sense of morals, it just means that atheists derive it from somewhere else and have a responsibility towards humans rather than mythological beings.
Then please feel free to explain to me how Gematria is even compatible with linguistics. If you just "deny" it out of principle, it makes you look like an immature, petulent fool.
Yes, what you said is a lie.
You said that Gematria isn't part of Linguistics "
yet" and will "
eventually" become part of it (see below, where you repeat that statement). That means the statement is not true
now. Therefore a lie.
That's false and it certainly isn't up to you, 11919815125.
As I said, Gematria attributes "importance" to words based on an arbitrary value within an arbitrary value system. In your case, you use simple english gematria to find 4s and 7s in it. That is your personal arbitrary system. I previously used the same valuing system, but looked for values of 135 and 65.
Linguistics does not concern itself with a vague, non-definite idea of "importance", it doesn't put words through a valuing process.
Linguistics is studying how (for instance) the english word "Knight" and the german word "Knecht" (servant) are related.
False. There's nothing arbitrary about counting the number(6) of(2) letters(7) in(2) a(1) word(4)/name(4)/phrase(6) and then using that number* symbolically. There's nothing arbitrary about the alphanumeric cipher of A=1, B=2, C=3...Z=26 - it's the simplest code there is.
The entire process is arbitrary and the very existence of different ways to value the letters/words is proof that you are wrong with this one, dude.
No, linguistics is alot more than that. What have you read on linguitics?
http://wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistics
So at least you bothered to read the wikipedia article. After going on record stating that wikipedia is not a good source. One of many inconsistencies.
Note that I posted a link to a scientific definition earlier in this thread (one which shut down this debate back then cause you knew you were cornered, btw).
You can if you want. I never heard of 'heuristics', what is that?
Google that.
Wrong, but one of us is a BIG fool. The near future** will answer, "Which one?"
See above:
You admit that the statement is not true as of now. Therefore it's a lie.
Atheists wrongly believe that there are no consequences for their actions and that there is no afterlife.
"Let him who is without felony records cast the first stone."
