tec
Tammy, sorry for the incorrect assumption (and thank you cofty). Nevertheless, you said you "studied" for a while with the witlesses. So, at least you're familiar with their m.o. After some time reading your posts, I have found that what you now have is not so different than theirs. The perfect example is your circularity in saying "Truth is truth".
"I simply mean that truth is truth... regardless of what you or I or anyone THINKS is truth; or regardless of who does or does not accept it."
On the face of it, that statement rings true. But in the same vein, bad is bad, boys will be boys and opinions will be like assholes. But, who gets to make that determination? I suppose we can say that each of us do. But not arbitrarily -- not if what is considered truth is going to remain true. This is why we have some tools in order to make that determination. Truth can only be that which is verifiable or confirmed. It is not what someone thinks it is in their head. It has to agree with reality or at least the common reality we all share. It has to make sense to us via logic. The verification of truth is founded on real knowledge and not on what we simply have come to believe.
So, if I say that there is no possible way to determine that there is a Supreme Being, the burden of proof to the contrary must be something I can, not just accept for the sake of belief, but accept because the evidence is undeniable. You can claim that "faith" is the key to believing. But faith, if there is such a thing and is real, must also meet the same burden of proof. That it sometimes works out and events and ideas seem to coincide does not make anything true. You have built an elaborate universe in your mind about what is and what is not. That's OK. But you must expect that lacking any evidence (even in the form of reasoning), others will challenge you and point out the flaws in your thinking.
I think that I've expressed the gist of what I was trying to say without referring back to specific examples in your narrative. While the rest of the conversation has drifted away from your original poser, the fundamental problem is that what you started to discuss is unfounded or untrue resulting in the commentary that was generated.