Pantheism/Panentheism Is Superior To Atheism

I would like to point out a disgusting tactic semantic tactic "The Psychology Behind The Belief Self-preservation is in our nature. Respecting ourselves is in our nature. Wanting to better ourselves is in our nature. That which we percieve as divine is naturally looked upon with deep reverence, holiness and the like. In Pantheism and Panentheism, the "Self" is all that is. All that exists is also held to be divine. Therefore the Pantheist is naturally inclined to preserve all that is, respect all that is, and try to better all that is. As well as give deep reverence for all that is, considering it to be divine, holy, and the like. This is the very essence of Pantheism and Panentheism as I have defined it. " Here we now see that he's not talking about actual pantheism, but a perverse psuedo-pantheism with ATTACHED definitions. This was not a debate about pro's weird religious beliefs, but about actual pantheism. I would easily say, hey look what atheism+ says, they're for social justice and their priority is charity. Yet. .. as we all know, this is not inherent in atheism, nor is anything pro has said inherent in pantheism. The disbelief in the supernatural is also NOT inherent in atheism, I myself know someone in real life that does not believe in god but believes in ghosts, this person is an atheist and believes in the supernatural. The reason I make a point of this is because this is another example of pro playing semantic games, attaching definitions to words that don't inherently require that belief. I've demonstrated that he does not believe that everything is himself, yet he keeps saying this. Pantheism does not entail that someone views the world the way pro keeps insinuating it does, he is giving his specific attachments as if that is inherent in pantheism. He has not demonstrated one psychological impact, he merely implied that calling all things that exist makes you view all things that exist the same way a christian views god, but of course this is preposterous, the christian god is conscious, has will, and holds their souls in the balance as well as other gods. All that is, simply is all that is and the pantheist knows this. "Actions and ways of living that bring about the highest good, the most good, should always prevail over those that bring about less good, the least good or no good at all. Pantheism and Panentheism as an action, as a way of life, brings about the highest good, the most good. Especially when compared to Atheism. Therefore the actions and way of life people should take, should be that of Pantheism and Panentheism. Remember this very sound and golden rule when you vote. Because as you can clearly see, A religion founded upon the understanding and belief system of Pantheism and Panentheism is most certainly the highest good. "Once again, these are attached definitions. Pro doesn't define what good is according to a pantheist, as I said earlier, if the universe is god then one could deduce the highest good is whatever happens. In reality, what they consider good has NOTHING to do with labeling the universe god, they reach these conclusions independant of pantheism. The golden rule isn't inherent in pantheism in any, way, shape, or form. A religion that doesn't require you think of feces, rapists, and murderes as divine and to view them as you, would be alot better. The fact a large amount of atheists are constantly talking about how great the Golden Rule is and follow it is evidence that a person is an atheist is so because he desires to be selfish, individualistic, and ignorant to a fault. Not following the golden rule doesn't make someone ignorant, nor does it illustrate the desire to be. Not following the rule doesn't mean someone is individualistic considering Plato didn't believe it, yet his ideal society was entirely based on community and the individual wasn't to be focused on. The nazi party was entirely community based, yet they didn't treat the jews as themselves. Pro continues to stretch words, extend reasoning that makes NO sense. In conclusion This entire debate was Pro being deceptive, extending definitions and beliefs where they didn't belong, giving his own views as if they represent pantheism. He did not show that both pantheism and panentheism is superior to atheism, he didn't even define what good is to a pantheist. As I said twice and with no protest from pro and as he made a "gaurantee" to make it interesting, "In order to win this debate pro must demonstrate that labeling the totality of existence as god is more beneficial than atheism as well as showing that not labeling the totality of existence as god is based on a desire to be selfish, individualistic, and ignorant. "I would hope that no person could possibly believe he met this burden considering he had to show that the reason atheists were infact atheists is because they are selfish, individualistic, and ignorant. The only evidence he offered for this is that the golden rule is not inherent in atheism, yet this claim is about the persons motives, I properly refuted this claim by pointing out a large portion of atheists do infact live by the golden rule and that the golden rule has nothing to do with knowledge or being social(Plato and hitler as examples of people who didn't follow the golden rule, yet were the opposite of individualistic). My opponent used no sources, I used several.