Is pantheism a reasonable belief

I tend to find pantheism a confused position. It harmonizes God with Nature and by so doing confuses important distinctions. Nature is a catch-all term for everything that exists on Earth but is reasonably stretched to include everything that exists. God is generally understood in major religions and by deists to mean the Creator of the universe (or Nature) and is generally agreed to be infinite (and so omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent) and conscious. To make categorization of beliefs on God simple I tend to place them as theist, deist or atheist. As with many categorizations, it isn't true that everybody shares the same beliefs eg some deists pray, some don't; some atheist are conservative, some are liberal. It is also possible to place them on a belief gradient with atheists being the least. People are finicky. They can choose a label because they like it even though it falsely describes them, or they do it unwittingly. I usually find that attimes pantheists believe in a God who made the universe and so shares the qualities of God I have stated. I sometimes find pantheists (though rarely) who_at least seemingly_don't believe in God as I've described. In this case I think the term 'sexed-up atheism' by Dawkins is very apt. Because such atheists (as they indeed are) like to think they are different because they believe Nature is all-emcompassing (which everybody believes) and has an innate capability to 'create' conscious beings_which many atheists would likely accede to. Let's distinguish between two pantheists here: those who tag God to the universe and actually believe in a Creator God and those who do so and are atheist. Now I have a basis to better rebut my debater's notion. Pantheism (in the God-affirming) is not at all new. Ancient religions actually also equated God to the universe. Hinduism and Taoism are a perfect examples. I also find the fact interesting that the Greek pantheon of gods ultimately owe their origins to a vaguely-defined 'Chaos' whilst more directly descended from Gaia (or the Earth herself). Christianity is usually though to contradict pantheism but the oft-quoted verse Rom 1:20 and its talk of God invisble qualities in Nature hints at pantheistic thought, especially when taken in context of a Christian belief of God seeking to inhabit men and manifest His glory through creation. Spinoza is also associated with pantheism for his statement 'Deus sive Natura' (ie God or Nature) and the theme of his opus 'Ethics' (which influenced me deeply). I believe the association of Spinoza with pantheism (and atheism) is deeply mistaken. Below is a quote from Wikipedia that elucidates this point "Though Spinoza has been called the 'prophet' and 'prince' of pantheism, in a letter to Henry Oldenburg Spinoza states that: 'as to the view of certain people that I identify god with nature (taken as a kind of mass or corporeal matter), they are quite mistaken'. For Spinoza, our universe (cosmos) is a mode under two attributes of Thought and Extension. God has infinitely many other attributes which are not present in our world. According to German philosopher Karl Jaspers, when Spinoza wrote 'Deus sive Natura' (God or Nature) Spinoza did not mean to say that God and Nature are interchangeable terms, but rather that God's transcendence was attested by his infinitely many attributes, and that two attributes known by humans, namely Thought and Extension, signified God's immanence. Furthermore, Martial Gu"roult suggested the term 'Panentheism', rather than 'Pantheism' to describe Spinoza"s view of the relation between God and the world. The world is not God, but it is, in a strong sense, 'in' God." http://en.wikipedia.org... I happen to agree with panentheism. I think pantheism is best understood as a direct equation of God to Nature whilst denying God's existence. Many self-described atheists will gladly agree to tagging divinity to the universe and so may freely and rightly take on being called pantheist. To recap: * I first started out by stating what is contradictory. It conflates God and Nature * Then I stated how I classify beliefs and how pantheism tends to fall in * I also stated how various religions already show pantheistic thoughts. * I ended suggesting pantheism be applied to atheists. The ball's in your court now Instigator.