Pantheism/Panentheism Is Superior To Atheism

Here is a breakdown of what Con said and the rebuttal."By this line of reasoning pro is insinuating that if someone calls an elephant, god, then an atheist does not believe that elephants exist."Not at all, actually. All I did was point out that "God" is not only a personal and self-aware deity."This is a disgusting semantic tactic. In regards to the term atheist, the context of the word deity or god implies..."It's not a semantic tactic at all. Consciousness doesn't imply personal deity or a "self-aware" deity. In fact there are many definitions of God that are far from the Abrahamic definition. Such as Plotinus's deity who is "not" self-aware, nor is it a personal deity like that of the Abrahamic faiths. Lets be clear: Atheism is the disbelief in God in any way, shape or form whatsoever; That includes the disbelief in a deity that is not self-aware, that is not personal.Nowhere did I say within the debate that by denying the existence of God as defined by Pantheism and Panentheism, that you deny the existence of everything that exists. That was in the comments, and it was a joke. Con is greatly misunderstanding the whole philosophy."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. And so on, and so on. Con seems to think I was being overly literal, I wasn't. 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.And then Con again misunderstands why I quoted GeoLaurete. It's not really so much about the science of things. It's that the universe itself has many characteristics of what we typically attribute to the Abrahamic idea of God, without the personhood and self-awareness.The universe is powerful beyond imagining. There are set laws and rules that are in place within our universe. The universe does give us life and it does take it away, and then it gives us life again, as we are all one, and the elements of our bodies never truly die, they merely transform and change. When you think about it, the universe does punish evil, because we are the universe and we usually take evil down eventually. The universe actually can be considered infinite, as Con didn't consider the Big-Crunch and the continuous cycle of Big-Bang and Big-Crunch. But that doesn't matter. The entire point I was making by quoting him was that the universe can very easily be considered God."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.And now you see Con playing with semantics. 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. I would like to see how Con would show me there is no interconnection between earwax, toenails and the like with us humans. They are there for a reason.And then he talks about advancement of civilization. This is something he misunderstands, again, misunderstandings, and I will clarify on that. In no way does being a Pantheist or Panentheist actually say that you have to be a complete pacifist and not use the commodities of the world, that you can't cut down trees. What I pointed out was that we, as Pantheists and Panentheists, would have a deeper respect and reverence for all that is, and would consider our actions carefully before wildly destroying our environments. Perhaps after cutting only a needed portion of trees, selective cutting, and not destroying entire forests, we could plant more trees right after, as well as other ideas that would result from this deep reverence and respect. So yes, he is right, there is nothing immoral about chopping down trees for wood, I never said such a thing. I clearly spoke of the destruction of the forests, the complete annihilation of them, that is immoral.""Atheism offers no spiritual sustenance, however, Pantheism and Panentheism does. In fact Pantheists and Panentheists can draw upon many, many traditions for this. And many of these practices such as meditation and mindfulness are proven to be clinically helpful.""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. That seems to be the opposite of what he said. Considering all that is as God, brings about massive psychological benefits. When you look at the suffering child in Africa, it is no longer just a suffering child in Africa, but it is you that is suffering from starvation, rape and torture, etc. Not only is it you that is suffering, but you are God, an aspect of God, so an aspect of God, whom we love so much, whom we have a deep reverence and respect for, whom we wish to preserve and treat well, is suffering.ConclusionEverything 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.This is something that Con completely misunderstands. He says that we are not one. 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?And Con made the same point that I made, this debate is about which is superior. Atheism has no uniting factors that instill great philosophies such as the one of Pantheism and Panentheism. In all actuality, just like the laymen of religions like Christianity and Islam, most Atheists, as most are laymen, stick to the basics and leave it off at that. With nothing motivating them to better society, something that is above them, something that inclines them to see themselves in all that is. They "disbelieve in God in any way, shape or form" and leave it at that. Granted, many Atheists do quite a lot for society, but most, like most people, don't really go much further than the basics of their beliefs, thereby just living life day by day. Self-preservation is in our nature. Respecting ourselves is in our nature. Wanting to better ourselves is in our nature. In Pantheism and Panentheism, the "Self" is all that is. All that exists together is God, with individual things within the All are mere aspects of God. Therefore the Pantheist is naturally inclined to preserve all that is, respect all that is, and try to better all that is. Consider this, dear voters, as you read this debate. When I say that all is God, that means that every face you look upon, whether human, animal, or plant, is your face, each of these individuals are you, and you are them. You are one with all of these. And all that is, is God. Remeber what God is. God is a person whom we naturally want to revere, respect and love. Therefore we will naturally revere, respect and love all that is. And then consider this very philosophy with a religion built over it, a church you could say, that propagates this message, that does many things that church services do, bringing about a very close union between communities, states and nations, all of mankind.