I think I get it, Yuyutsu.

>>I never deny that tables and chairs do exist. What I am saying is that existence itself is an illusion.<<

So, the existence of tables and chairs is an illusion, but you don't deny that they exist.

>>what we perceive as existence, along with all existing forms and shapes within it, truly is God<<

So tables and chairs are... God?

Oh.

>>'Cogito ergo sum': I am under the illusion that I think, therefore I am deluded that I exist<<

Deep. Reminds me of something... ah yes. The great Douglas Adams.

Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy, Fit the Twelfth.

................................

ZAPHOD:
He-heh. Man, like, er, man, what’s your name?

MAN IN SHACK:
I don’t know. Why, do you think I ought to have one? It seems odd to give a bundle of vague sensory perceptions a name.

ZARNIWOOP:
Listen, we must ask you some questions.

MAN IN SHACK:
All right. You can sing to my cat if you like.

ARTHUR:
Would he like that?

MAN IN SHACK:
You’d better ask him that.

ZARNIWOOP:
How long have you been ruling the universe?

MAN IN SHACK:
Ah! This is a question about the past, is it?

ZARNIWOOP:
Yes.

MAN IN SHACK:
How can I tell that the past isn’t a fiction designed to account for the discrepancy between my immediate physical sensations and my state of mind?

ZARNIWOOP:
Do you answer all questions like this?

MAN IN SHACK:
I say what it occurs to me to say when I think I hear people say things. More, I cannot say.

ZARNIWOOP:
No, Listen. People come to you, yes?

MAN IN SHACK:
I think so.

ZARNIWOOP:
And they ask you to take decisions about wars, about economies, about people, about everything going on out there in the Universe?

MAN IN SHACK:
I only decide about my universe. My universe is what happens to my eyes and ears - anything else is surmise and hearsay: for all I know these people may not exist. You may not exist. I say what it occurs to me to say.

..............................

Classic.

Yuyutsu: <<'Cogito ergo sum': I am under the illusion that I think, therefore I am deluded that I exist.>>

Acolyte: <<"I am under the illusion that I think"...Well, you certainly got that part right.>>

Your laughter rings through your words, Acolyte, and mine joins with yours! To the ego the notion of its own non-existence is truly hilarious in its absurdity. That's because the ego is founded on its innate will which was originally set free by God, but in its pride the ego denies that. Once we cut through all the elaborate constructions we erect to hide the truth, we realise the joke we have played on ourselves.

Wm Trevor: <<Do I cease to exist when God realises he is a metaphysical solipsist?>>

I would question the choice of words, but you may be on track to real insight there. Unconsciously perhaps?

Is God's creation a cosmic joke? Perhaps the more we drop our ego-defences the more we might admit the joke, join in the fun and participate with abundant joy in God's creation.

"I would question the choice of words..."

This from a guy who tried to single-handedly redefine the word 'insist'.

Yes, I would agree that the creation of God is a cosmic joke.
After I got it, I laughed until I cried.

I’m afraid all we’re seeing here from Yuyutsu and Crabsy is pure wordplay - nothing more. Wordplay employed with the sole intent of setting up a new God whom they hope to shelter entirely from all criticism.

I suspect Dawkins is on to something in his prediction that religion will probably die a very quick death if this is where it’s headed.

Even if you could indoctrinate a child with such a convoluted and sophisticated theology, the utterly inconsequential nature of it would, I suspect, see only a very few of those indoctrinated notions of God ever survive teenage angst or a complete lack of interest in such seemingly pointless intellectual pursuits.

No, this highly convoluted version of theology (and as Pericles noted, perversion of the English language) is not a starting point for indoctrination but the last refuge of a belief taking cover from a barrage of reason in an increasingly educated world.

This new God we’re seeing is simply an invention by those whose intellects have lead them to a point that they find incredibly uncomfortable and so, instead of facing reality, they invent a new God and make him even more absurd and even more mysterious than the ones who came before it.

All this new brand of theist has done, is come to the realisation that the more literal interpretations of God are fundamentally false; that they’re internally incoherent; that they contradict themselves and everything we know about reality and are abominations by ignorant savages trying desperately to understand the world, and failing.

But they at least did a good job of trying and they came up with explanations that not only seemed plausible at the time, but still seem plausible to anyone not willing to investigate reality.

Sorry guys, but until either one of you can so much as begin to demonstrate that there is any substance at all to any of your claims, then they are no less absurd than my claim that the Cosmic Space Pixie created everything five minutes ago and implanted our brains with fake memories, and should be treated thusly.

aj/quote..''All this new brand of theist has done, is come to the realisation that the more literal interpretations of God are fundamentally false;""

mate the concept of god being the dreamer
and we the dream..isnt a new thought
its been arround for a long time

at its root lies the fact we are
thus the reason for our being [god]..is more real than we be

that if we boil it down..we egsist
because he insists[and it was an athiest who started that thread]

""that they’re internally incoherent;"'

says you who are a-thiest'..lol
cant makeup your own name"

""that they contradict themselves"'

yes an all athiests are of one like mind..[lol]

""and everything we know about reality""

comes from our life experiences...and study
just like yourn

""and are abominations""

say you
pewww

""by ignorant savages"'

you sure got it all...lol
and bias too..[oh well this is god giving you frewill]

your just like us
""trying desperately to understand the world, and failing.""

[even a dead clock is right twice a day

""But they""
who is 'they'?

who..""at least did a good job of trying
and they came up with explanations that not only seemed plausible at the time, but still seem plausible to anyone not willing to investigate reality.""

they athiest?
they thiest?
they yours?
they is mine?

till we..""demonstrate that there is any substance at all to any of your claims,""

and remove mankinds freewill
remove our ability to believe or not..AS WE CHOSE

mate god wont let that happen

he dont want min dless slaves
he wants[eventually]..equals

grownups..with chooices
not children with blind obediances

""implanted our brains with fake memories,""

no of course materialists
crass comercialism[spin]..dont play with our minds

heck all mankind
has had its control freaks..
and liars..and spin..control freaks..thus all

"should be treated thusly."

tainted..

only god is pure

and as good/god..is within all living
all life deserves respect..regardless..of other judgments

Thank you AJ Philips.

That's the post I would have written if my eyes hadn't been full of tears. Whether they were tears of laughter, or despair at the futility of trying to engage with such nonsense, I couldn't really tell.

The linkage you make with the potential death of religion is a telling one. For centuries, religion has relied for its continuity upon the use of simple stories to impress children. I personally remember them well - my copy of the Christian Bible has illustrations interspersed among the tales, mostly of a long-golden-haired Jesus doing his miracles and being thoroughly nice to everyone.

To shift the simple "be nice" concepts into the realms of double-speak and double-think as our friends crabsy and Yuyutsu have done, is a classic marketing error. The audience here is too smart and knowledgeable to fall for its faux-sophistication, and the traditional audience it should be reaching - wide-eyed kiddies - would be unable to relate to it.

I don't think that they will single-handedly destroy religion, though, any more than Dawkins will. There remains a fundamental need in the human psyche for an idealized father-figure who tells you what to do, as a safe haven from actually having to take responsibility for your own decisions. This need isn't going to go away, and it certainly won't be rationalized out of existence by pseudo-intellectualizing religion's purported foundations.