On what premise do you support this assertion?
Willamena, you may not be aware of the fact that your comment about my being rude came specifically at a bad time for me. I think I had asked for this opinion thinking no one would be able to say I was rude. I still don't see how I was rude but maybe things are not as I see them. This was on another thread on which I was asked to leave. Your innocent comment was joined by a few others that were upset with me.They obviously thought they had a reason to be upset with me. I was in the process of assessing my behavior to determine if I had been rude and had not realized this. Things on that thread exploded, words were exchanged and things became heated. It seemed the more I apologized the worst things became.
The conflict that started on different threads came to this thread. Things have been rather fun here,too, since the fire started. There have been several implied insults exchanged. In the past few hours the tone has calmed down which I appreciate. I am not going to ask again for any body to give their opinion on my behavior or am I going to apologize for it in the same manner. I simply am going to try to do better in expressing my opinion in a less controversial manner. That being said, I am still open for intellectual criticism of my ideas.
Lawyers argue like this all the time. Suddenly they stop and turn to the subject at hand. They say that they had to get the Pis***g contest over before getting down to business. Now, everybody, are you ready to go back to business or do you want to empty your bladder a little more first? Me, I am finished.
Why do I make this assertion. Logic is as good as the premises upon which it is based. If the premise of thinking changes, conclusions will vary with the change in premises. If you thought premises change, you could never have faith in science.
God is the only eternal premise that can be conceived of that does not change. As such a person that does not believe in God does not have a solid premise that does not change. Some cultures are based on premises that change, like China. Some Liberal Judges believe premises change. To these people there is no Absolute. However, as fact would have it, people do not live by this logic of premises changing all the time. Part of the time people believe in premises that do not change. People do not live by their intellectual knowledge. Does anybody do what is correct all the time? I don't, no matter how hard I try. The argument on this thread is an example.
That's it, all in a GadFly shell.