(December 21, 2015 at 8:26 pm)Cato Wrote:(December 21, 2015 at 3:39 pm)Delicate Wrote: I don't think you're following the line of argument.
What's as yet unexplained is what problem Cato has with my argument, given that he can't express an objection.
Did you not understand my reference to Hume's guillotine? Or are you simply incapable of seeing its immediate applicability to the is/ought you established in your justice example? I thought the argument would be understood by someone that hurled a 'problem of induction' grenade in another conversation (the problem predates Hume of course, but his is the most famous and thorough treatment).
Not only did I succinctly express my objection, but simultaneously unveiled your ignorance notwithstanding your constant reminders of your intellectual superiority.
It's typical of people who are uninformed about issues, like you, to resort to empty sloganeering rather than demonstrating a real problem.
Unless you can clearly explain what the problem is (which you still haven't been able to, notice), I don't see a point.
Atheism may be built on empty sloganeering. But in the real world, you need substance.
