No you see that’s just because of the all too common but misguided belief in the solidity of trees.
You’re still reasoning in circles. “Whatever is real will knock me on my ass. Trees are real, and so they knock me on my ass.” You value ass knocking. You have trees. Good for you! So, what is your complaint that I value God and have Him? Especially when I’ve said more power to you for what you value. It is as though you would bristle if I found some happiness that had eluded you. Why, Czar… are you jealous? 
My mistake entirely for using a simple analogy with someone who once “proved” gods existence with a formula. No, I am not jealous of any emotions that you might feel at any moment-I can pretty much guarantee that I feel the same emotions you do. I am saying(again, IMHO) that the reality of the personal god you describe is in doubt. Not some “reality” that exists for you and you alone, but the common, shared reality the can directly effect the rest of the universe. Note the word “direct” in that last sentence, please, so that we can head off any “My personal god makes me feel thus, which causes me to act thus, and that’s how he effects and interacts with the world!” arguments.
Well, you can believe in “personal” trees that exist only in your own reality, but there’s one small problem-you’re not going get get very high climbing those branches, and the fruit of the “personal” tree leaves you feeling mighty hungry after a while.
Who would that be?
I understand. I love trees too. Just not so much.
But… but… you were just insisting that God does affect reality. In fact, you rejected my suggestion that you meant “perception” when you said “imagination”. You don’t ascribe to me merely an entity that I perceive; you ascribe to me an entity that causes me to imagine things — i.e., it’s affecting me. I’m a part of the universe, right?
I didn’t say it’s not a definition; I said nobody commonly uses it. Oh…except you. :rolleyes:
But hey, keep on thinking you’re right and the rest of the world is wrong.
Well, you should inform the folks at Dictionary.com. It’s definition number 1.
Only if you don’t believe in them enough 
Now I’m curious-What exactly did I say in your personal reality that caused you to respond with the above post, because in my personal reality I didn’t ascribe any entities to you whatsoever(unless you are claiming that you are totally incapable of imagining anything without the aid of some supernatural entity possessing you)?
Saint Remax?
Wait a minute. Are you saying that I’m imagining not just the entity, but the experiences as well? Are we back to the old claim that I’m delusional?
Your reality, your god-you deal with it. I find the real world wondrous, complex and mysterious enough as it is, so I feel no need to add extraneous “gods” into the mix just to make it more so.
Same for me, thanks.
You might want to consult another source next time.
American Heritage:
My hard copy of Webster’s:
Oxford:
Cambridge:
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=pretentious*1+0&dict=A
http://www.allwords.com/query.php?SearchType=3&Keyword=pretentious&goquery=Find+it!&Language=ENG
Your definition doesn’t even appear in any of these sources. It might be included in an unabridged dictionary, and in dictionary.com, where it appears as:
“full of pretense or pretension.”
They obviously listed it that way so as to indicate which noun it derives from, and if you take the additional step of looking up “pretense”, you would arrive at the incorrect conclusion that yours is the most common usage. But it’s patently obvious that is not a common usage, to the point that it’s not even included in most dictionaries.
But please, Liberal - feel free to go on thinking you’re right and the entire rest of the world is wrong.