The Instigator
Talib.ul-Ilm
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Dann
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

Atheists Should Be Pantheists

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Dann
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/30/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 874 times Debate No: 33115
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (4)
Votes (2)

 

Talib.ul-Ilm

Pro

I argue that Atheists should become Pantheists on the basis that psychologically and philosophically, Pantheism is superior to Atheism.

Pantheism within this debate is defined as the belief in all that is, is God, and that every individual thing within the universe is an aspect of God.

There is no conflict with science in Pantheism, as there is no personal God who makes judgments of heaven and hell. And I stress that because there is no real conflict with science, that this debate is not about God's existence per say, but which philosophy/belief system is more ideal, superior. And because there is no personal God, all arguments trying to disprove a personal God are invalidated.

The debate will consist of opening statements, and then the rebuttals
Dann

Con

I most definitely accept this debate. I am a pantheist. And I believe of course that everybody should be pantheists, but lets bring it down to reality - if atheists were pantheists they would cease to be atheists.

I argue let them have whichever beliefs they have. Or, more precisely, let them not have whichever beliefs they don't have.
Debate Round No. 1
Talib.ul-Ilm

Pro

Thank you for accepting the challenge, Dann. However, just to clarify, this is not so much that they should not be Atheists and instead become Pantheists in the understanding that they can't be Atheists. The debate is about why they should become Pantheists, and denounce Atheism. This is not about them not having the right to be Atheists or not. So I am not sure that you are a good candidate for this debate, but perhaps you can give it your best shot speaking for the Atheist?

Anyways. On to my opening statement.

Let me elaborate on what this Pantheism is that I am arguing for Atheists to consider:

The All that is, is God, every individual thing, is an aspect of God. This means that you are not you, an individual, but you are also your friends, your family, your society, even creation itself. You're merely an individual aspect, one of which, if it should even be completely erased from the timeline, never have existed, will most definitely bring about a different creation.

Everything that makes you the person you are is the result of the influences and factors of your past and present biology and genetics, environment and society, thoughts, speech and actions. This is a fact that really can't be argued against, though anyone can certainly try.

Take away just one of those factors from the timeline of your creation, and you're a different person for sure.

What does this mean to the Pantheist? This means that your mother is you, your father is you, your friends are you, your enemies are you, the animals are you, the environment is you. And what is the one thing we never want to hurt? Ourselves. We never intentionally do anything to hurt ourselves, depressed folk excluded.

Not only does it mean you see everything as a piece of yourself, this belief also ingrains into your mind a deep reverence for all that is.

Why call all that is, god? The concept attached to the word "god", no matter what language, makes it the most powerful word and term you can use for all that is. Giving obvious psychological benefits.

Because this is a religion, it has the power to unite on a level that can't be seen in any other kind of organization. And not only does it have a great potential to unite people under this beautiful idea, as a religion, a community, it will propagate this message and teaching to our youth, keep it alive. And so many other benefits are brought about from it being a religion.

Next, the spirituality. Pantheism offers a deep, rich and vast range of spiritual practices, many of which have studies that show clear benefits, such as meditation. And you have a vast and global amount of traditions, which are Pantheistic, to choose said practices from, many of which help deepen your understanding of the universe, the Pantheists understanding.

Speaking of the traditions that are out there, the foundations of Pantheism are stronger. Let me name just a few faiths with Pantheistic tendencies. Buddhism, Vedanta, Neoplatonism, Sufism, and Gnosticism.
Dann

Con

"I argue that Atheists should become Pantheists on the basis that psychologically and philosophically, Pantheism is superior to Atheism."

Then you lose in a scholars mate, simply because you miss the atheist raison d'"tre. It is not psychological nor philosophical solace that the atheist seeks nor desires. It is cold, hard, objective and empirical facts pertaining to the nature of existence that floats the atheist boat.

If you could objectively prove that all is god to an atheist, then he would become a pantheist, but until that time comes you are simply asking the atheist to discard his own rationale and accept just another unknowable, unprovable concept. And he would have to, in the absence of said evidence, take it on 'faith'. Adopt a belief.

Your position is untenable I'm afraid.
Debate Round No. 2
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by StevenDixon 3 years ago
StevenDixon
Wish I would have gotten this debate : (
Posted by Talib.ul-Ilm 3 years ago
Talib.ul-Ilm
So in this case, superior means that which is better, higher quality, more beneficial.
Posted by Talib.ul-Ilm 3 years ago
Talib.ul-Ilm
su"pe"ri"or
/səG2;pi(ə)rēər/
Adjective
Higher in rank, status, or quality: "a superior officer".
Noun
A person or thing superior to another in rank, status, or quality, esp. a colleague in a higher position.
Posted by Skeptikitten 3 years ago
Skeptikitten
You have made no indication as what defines "superior" or whether a subjective belief CAN be termed "superior". You also seem unaware that people cannot simply choose to believe something that they do not.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by ClassicRobert 3 years ago
ClassicRobert
Talib.ul-IlmDannTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con won convincing arguments because Pro was unable to fulfill burden of proof.
Vote Placed by rross 3 years ago
rross
Talib.ul-IlmDannTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: So interesting. Pro described pantheism in a very positive way, but he didn't explain exactly why atheists should change to be pantheists. I suppose he assumed that once they saw the beauty of pantheism, they would recognize its superiority. But, as Con pointed out, they are not randomly assigned to atheism, but have chosen it for a reason. Con is wrong to assume all atheists are scientific rationalists, but his broader point still applies - Pro can't assume they want the same things he does.