Pantheism/Panentheism Is Superior To Atheism

God to a pantheist is synonymous with all things that existAtheists, do not deny that all things that exist actually exist, atheists believe it's meaningless to use the term god for all things that exist because of the confusion it may stir, since the days of the Arkadians and Sumerians, what people referred to as gods and deities were generally conscious(And the denial of these conscious concepts is what atheism is a rejection of). Anything you can derive from all that exists(aka what you call god), so can atheists, what we choose to call it is pure semantics.2. Calling the Totality of Existence God""I didn't contradict myself at all. Monad is the name of "God" in Platonism and Neoplatonism. Brahma is the name of "God" in Hinduism... The idea of God, the concept of God, in just about every culture and religion has the same power and effect, the same meaning, in essence. I was showing that calling the totality of existence "God" instead of "the universe" has more of an effect. Clearly because we speak English, I will be using the English word instead of Allaah, Brahma, Monad, and all of the like."You actually did contradict yourself. You said "There is no other word, term and concept in all of the languages of mankind that is more powerful than the word, term and concept of 'God.'" Then you said"God, Dios, Allaah, Brahma, Monad, all of these words are already established with this term and concept, with this power. And they all mean the same thing, God."God is not the same word as dios, God is not the same word as Allaah, God is not the same word as Brahma. These are different words for somewhat similar concepts. What christians mean by the word god, is not what pythagoras meant by "monad". THese concepts are not identical and have REAL differences. CHristians are referring to a entity known as YHWH, while monad is referring to Divinity or the one. You are equivocating what is equal to a title,god or deity, to the beings with these titles or what people are referring to when they use those words. Brahma is the name of A god, a specific entity with it's own characteristics. In greek mythology there was several gods, every one of them had their own characteristics, yet they were all gods. THe concept of Dionysus does not have the same effect on a person as the concept of Yhwh, the threat of hell and gift of everlasting life makes people fear him and love him far more. So the concept does differ depending on the context in which god is used, what they have in common is that they are words used for entities with superhuman abilities, or are ultra powerful or supernatural. Either way, this debate is not about whether or not you're justified in labeling all that exists as god but that labeling all that exists as god is somehow more beneficial than refusing to do so based on connotations."3. Psychological Superiority of Pantheism and Panentheism""Here is where he again doesn't understand what I said. I said that "Platonists" had "characteristics" of Pantheism and Panentheism. I never said that Plato himself was a Pantheist. Only that the ideas resulting from the works of that group of people have many elements of what I am arguing for."Those elements obviously didn't allow him to infer a view as the one you claimed. Here's the thing, atheism is simply the lack of belief in god(conscious entity ala yhwh, ra, etc), pantheism is simply labeling all things that exist as god. Anything a pantheist can infer from existence, and atheist could infer equally...because they both believe that all things that exist, exists, just call it something different."Because he is referring to earwax, toenails and all of the like. To the Pantheist and Panentheist, you're still maintaining all of those, but now you have respect for the natural process of an aspect of God. "But you said we are one according to the pantheist, that you view other things as you view YOU. Would you cut you? No, obviously, you were exaggerating in order to bring about some ethical revelation that ISN'T inherent in pantheism. In this statement you clearly make a distinction between things, which is exactly what I was trying to illustrate, everything is not "one". One doesn't gain a respect by labeling all things that exist, god, they label all things that exist, god, because they previously had that profound respect for the universe AS A WHOLE, not every single little detail. I have no need to show they're not connected, on the contrary, I specifically used earwax and toenails as an example because they ARE connected, they are not sentient nor feel and are a nuisence when they build up, we get rid of them and so do pantheists as you admitted. My point was that simply labeling all things that exists, god, does not allow a person to derive a system of ethics as you stated. Or else toenails wouldn't be cut, there's clear distinctions that must be made, as everyone must make, both atheists and pantheists are in the same boat.Nothing inherent in pantheism requires them to think deeply before cutting trees. They know like an atheist knows that they are just cutting a part of all that exists for a commodity. Everything you said of the pantheist could be said of the atheist, yet nothing you said is inherent in either atheism or pantheism. "There is nothing inherently spiritual about labelling the universe as God? Take a look at this... Self-preservation is in our nature. In Pantheism and Panentheism, the "Self" is all that is. Therefore the Pantheist and Panentheist is inclined to preserve himself, himself being all that is." As I have demonstrated and as he admitted, pantheists don't LITERALLY believe everything is themselves but that they themselves as well as everything is a part of all that exists. This means the human instinct of self preservation does not kick in, as demonstrated by the fact pantheists don't collect their hair or fingernails and do eat meat. One could even say that nothing that happens to anyone matters, because they're actually composed of energy that's eternal so the self is preserved REGARDLESS of your actions. Calling all that exists, god, brings about NO psychological benefits, pro has only asserted such without providing actual reasons, just baseless connections that a pantheist could make but an atheist could easily make it as well, yet are inherent in neither. My opponent continously equivocates. What the pantheist actually believes is that the starving children in africa are parts of all that exists(which atheists also believe) not a part of an actual living conscious god. "Everything that makes you, you, is the result of the past and present factors of your environment and society, genetics and biology, thoughts, speech and actions."Yes, I don't see what this has to do with anything." Okay, well, Con, I would like you to now demonstrate how you would be the exact same person you are today if I were to travel in time and snatch you away from those who raised you as a kid, and left you at a Buddhist temple to live. That's going to be a bit tricky, no?" Why? This has nothing to do with what we're talking about. The fact things effect each other does not mean that EVERYTHING is one. My opponent is constantly equivocating. When my opponent tells you that all is god, what he's really saying is that every face you see whether humans, plants, animals, etc are all a part of all that exists. Calling it god doesn't change this. "God is a person whom we naturally want to revere, respect and love."What?!!! WHat?!!! now god is a person? Make up your mind. God is all that exists, everyone that exists is a part of god, my hand is a part of a human, it is not human itself just as no person is god itself.My opponent has not shown that pantheism is inherently superior to atheism, atheists and pantheists actually share the same beliefs but simpy label it something else. Pro still has not even ATTEMPTED to show that atheists are atheists because of a desire to be selfish, individualistic, and ignorant.