Pantheism/Panentheism Is Superior To Atheism

Pro did not contend the following statement from my acceptance"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."From this we can conclude that he accepts this burden.As predicted, pro immediately resorts to semantics in order to make his case"Atheism: The disbelief in God, in any way, shape or form. Just to clarify, this does not exclude a conscious deity that is not self-aware, impersonal." By this line of reasoning pro is insinuating that if someone calls an elephant, god, then an atheist does not believe that elephants exist. This is a disgusting semantic tactic. In regards to the term atheist, the context of the word deity or god implies consciousness, this is the only meaningful way in which the word could be used or else it results in the words being meaningless. A theist could be someone that labels an ant as god and an atheist would have to reject the existence of everything since someone could always label anything as god. Of course atheists don't reject the existence of whatever is labeled god, but reject the existence of what the word god describes in the context of the definition.2. Calling the Totality of Existence GodPro unknowingly contradicts himself in his first paragraph. First he says that there is no other word in all languages of mankind that are more powerful that the specific word "God", then he goes on to list other words that he claims are equally powerful. This illustrates that it's not the word used, but the concept to what the word is referring to. God and Dios are not the same words, but seperate words referring to a similar concept.I would like to bring it to everyones attention that Geolaurete8 is DDO member, not an authority on the definition of god nor anything else, and his statement is flawed as I shall demonstrate."The Universe dictates the laws of nature.The Universe gave you life.The Universe punishes evil.The Universe is infinite.The Universe is the totality of existence (by traditional definition).The Universe handed down a moral code.Nobody should have any gripe with calling the Universe "God.""The Universe doesn't "dictate" the laws of nature, they are descriptions we created to explain the way nature works. The universe no more singles out evil to punish than it does good people, as an example I give this video of new born infants with Harlequin Ichthyosis http://www.youtube.com.... Some of the worst dictators are wealthy and happy beyond measure, yet are "evil". The universe actually appears to be finite, there is an edge and is still expanding.(Even if it turns out not to be, his assertion is still unsupported.") http://news.nationalgeographic.com...http://www.huffingtonpost.com...I would like for my opponent to demonstrate this moral code that the universe supposedly handed down.I don't have a gripe with someone calling the universe god because god is merely a word, I have a problem with someone equivocating what they're calling god with an actual conscious deity.3. Psychological Superiority of Pantheism and PanentheismHere my opponent insinuates that a part of something IS that something and this leads to you treating that something as you would yourself. Earwax is produced by us but we have no problem with getting rid of it. Our hair and finger/toenails are a part of us , yet we are constantly cutting it and maintaining it. This shows that one can not simply derive an ethical stance of treating all parts the same. My opponent claimed that the philosopher Plato was a pantheist in the comment section. To illustrate that labeling the entirety of the universe as god does not necessitate that you think of everything as yourself(or atleast feel you should treat everything as yourself), I would reference Plato's work The Republic, In which he outlines his ideal society. In this he says that kids that are ill and disabled should be locked away in a mysterious place AWAY from the rest of society "as they should be". http://classics.mit.edu...In no way does labeling the universe as god require that you treat anything in any particular manner, nor has my opponent demonstrated such. Their actions and moral codes must be derived independently of this particular belief because there is no ethics inherent in it. According to Pro, metal is you, by his own reasoning a person should refrain from melting it(because you wouldn't want to melt yourself right?). If this is the case then NO modern advances would have been possible and society itself would regress to a point leading back to our tribal origins. According to pro, chopping down trees is equivalent to chopping down yourself, if this is the case EVEN WOOD would not be a commodity. Atheism is obviously superior in this sense, since, it requires no such view, but allows one to come to their own conclusions and reason out that plants are necessary for oxygen but are not sentient nor feeling, so there is nothing immoral about chopping trees down for wood. Pro says that pantheism means you don't see anything in black in white, but this is contradictory to his earlier sentiments that you view everything as you, meaning everything is incredibly black and white. By claiming this is something Pantheism has over atheism, he is implying that if you are an atheist, you necessarily see things in black and white, yet, did nothing to support this implication. "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 within labeling the universe god. If we don't observe anything spiritual nor know of it's existence then a pantheist doesn't necessarily believe in it, since it is labeling all existing things as god. Nothing about labeling the universe as god requires that one meditates upon that belief. Nothing about atheism prohibits meditation nor mindfulness and the freedom gained from being an atheist allows for one to do such things due to observing it's benefits. "7. What Con has to Prove"I don't have to prove ANYTHING. All I must do is refute your claims because the burden of proof is on you. I can easily prove that we are not all one. A single human, itself, is not one but a combination of many particles. The universe itself is not one, but a label given to all things(in itself implies a degree of seperateness since there are several things) that exist. THe vast majority of atheists believe in some form of cause and effect, this is completely non sequiter. The word god does not encompass a single concept but is relative to the context in which it is used. God as the pantheists refer to it is not god as the christians or muslims refer to it. Also, this debate isn't over whether their belief is true, but which is superior so this is non sequiter.I don't have to show that atheism is not inferior to pantheism, I merely have to show that my opponent has not supported the claim that pantheism is superior to atheism as well as being an atheist comes from the desire to be selfish, individualistic, and ignorant. This is a classic attempt at shifting the burden.Pro has shown a severe lack of comprehension of what language actually is. He has in no way supported his assertion that pantheism is superior to atheism. He merely made off the wall connections that aren't inherent in it. He hasn't even attempted to demonstrate that atheist's not labeling the totality of existence as god is based on a desire to be selfish, individualistic, and ignorant.