Pantheism/Panentheism Is Superior To Atheism

"The Psychology Behind The Belief"No, in pantheism all that is, is labeled as god. Not one, conscious, divine entity, but simply all that is. I wish my opponent would stop equivocating the pantheist god with other concepts of god. If I named my dog, god, this wouldn't necessarily entail that I worship him or treat him differently then any other dog. I must continously use synonymous statements to clearly illustrate what pro is actually saying. My opponent has merely asserted that a pantheist would be inclined to "preserve all that is" and hasn't demonstrated such. As I said in my last post, taken to an extreme one could say that since everything is converted to energy upon death, that EVERYTHING is permanently preserved regardless of action. Morality and ethics must be derived independently of labeling the universe as god, as atheists must derive their morality and ethics independantly of disbelief in god."Attaching Divinity To CreationPantheism and Panentheism is a belief that attaches divinity to the universe.The word "universe" is a general word, a more scientific term, and attaches no divinity.Words like "God, Allah, Dios, Monad, Brahma" and all of the like are words and terms with divinity attached to them.Therefore the universe should be called by God, Allah, Dios, Monad, Brahma and all of the like."Pantheism unnecessarily uses a word for the universe that is associated with divinity, god. This does not attach anything, merely it implies that a pantheist is in awe of the universe AS A WHOLE. Rape, murder, and stealing are natural and a part of the universe, yet I doubt a pantheist would consider this divine. As such, just because the universe as a whole is divine does not mean a pantheist will find a tree or the meat they eat divine. This is known as a fallacy of Division.http://www.logicalfallacies.info...Someone could call the universe zues if they'd like, but it would clearly cause unecessary confusion."he Psychology Behind DivinityPeople naturally treat the divine with respect, deep reverence, holiness and all of the like.The universe and all that is in it is seen as divine within Pantheism and Panentheism.Therefore people will naturally treat the universe and all that is in it with respect, deep reverence, holiness and all of the like."People CONSTANTLY curse the gods. Pro once again equivocates divine in the traditional sense with what divine means in a pantheist sense. People believed gods were conscious, had good will, etc, this is why they treated them with respect. god in the pantheist sense is not conscious, has no will, etc.Here's what pro gets wrong, Pantheism is not a belief system, it's relabling, it's a statement of awe. My opponent may take this ludicrous interpretation and derive an ethical stance but it is not inherent, an atheist could also derive an ethical stance like "There is no god and we're lucky to come here by chance, all of us, every single person is special and we should treat them as such", yet this is not inherent in atheism as Pro's statements are not INHERENT in pantheism." The Highest Good Should Prevail" Pro didn't explain how premise 1 could be derived from labeling all that exists as god, merely asserted it. Pantheism isn't a way of life, it's labeling all that exists as god, any way of life must be derived independently. He never explained what good means to a pantheist and how they derived that from pantheism, the word good must come from an independant source. Atheists could come up with the same exact ethical stance and most actually share this stance, yet as i've said numerous times, it is inherent in neither pantheism nor atheism.The funny thing is that if the universe is divine, the greatest good is not what should prevail, but whatever happens should prevail, because whatever happens or is, is divine."Pantheism and Panentheism As A Religion"Pro has not demonstrated that anything inherently good comes labeling all that exists as god, thereby not demonstrating that anything good comes from getting other people to do it. Atheists and pantheists both believe all that exists, they just call it something else. Any ethical stance a pantheist can derive from all that exists, and atheist could equally derive, yet there is no inherent ethical stance within labeling all that exists as god."The Unlikely Attachment Of Divinity"I have already demonstrated that Pantheists don't LITERALLY believe that other things are themselves. Nor does labeling all that exists. My opponent has not demonstrated why respecting a rapist, a pile of god feces, or the ebola is a good thing, labeling these things as divine could potentially be harmful. As I've said, one could easily deduce that all that happens and is, is divine, the highest good is simply what happens and what is, because that is what is divine. There is no need to have a profound respect for toe-nails or urine, merely understand their function. I think it's hilarious that Pro is insinuating there is an intrensic good in believing urine is divine. Pro is trying to pawn off the worship of fecal matter as something psychologically healthy.My opponent is CONSTANTLY asserting his OWN positions as if they're inherent within pantheism. They're not...they are just his particular views. Pantheism doesn't actually entailthat you respect a rapist, pantheism doesn't require that you have a profound respect for feces, all pantheism requires is that you label the universe god. All other strings are attached by specific people and are not inherent in pantheism. I could go on and on about the millions of fantastic ethical views someone that doesn't believe in god could muster up from that disbelief. Remember, this isn't about what is true but merely what is beneficial. So if an atheist says "Since there are no gods and humans are the most godlike, we should treat them as such", this is EQUALLY benifical to pantheism."Rebuttal" If I were raped as a child, that rapist is interconnected with me in some obtuse way, the reason this doesn't matter is because you're trying to say there's something inherently good about respecting that rapist, or that I am one with the rapist because he has effected me. Just because the rapist effected me, does not mean i am ONE with the rapist nor should I respect what he is or did.Once again my opponent equivocates, if you're a pantheist, saying that you see the face of god is a metaphor for seeing a part of all that exists. This does not incline anyone to be more compassionite. "Atheism, Not The Highest Good"Atheism is simply a lack of belief in god, it says NOTHING about how selfish the person is, nothing about what the person desires, nothing about how social they are, nothing about what they actually believe. Atheists have plenty of things to unite them, yet it's not inherent in atheism because it's simply a non belief in one thing. Nor does pantheism imply someone isn't selfish, or that they are social, all it is, is labeling the universe, god. My opponent has not demonstrated that not being a pantheist is selfish, merely asserted it, my opponent has not even attempted to demonstrate that it is ignorant, atheists and pantheists share the same beleifs about reality. Remember that pantheism entails no such motto as "the higher good". This is a motto derived independantly.Pro must demonstrate that pantheism is inherently superior to atheism and must show that being an atheist stems from the DESIRE to be individualistic, selfish, and ignorant in order to win this debate.As counter evidence to the claim atheism stends of individualist and selfish desires I present a site full of atheists for social justice.http://atheismplus.com...