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

Pantheism/Panentheism Is Superior To Atheism

Do you like this debate?NoYes-2
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 7 votes the winner is...
StevenDixon
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/22/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 6,152 times Debate No: 34018
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (177)
Votes (7)

 

Talib.ul-Ilm

Pro

This debate is about which ideology/belief system is superior to the other psychologically, socially, culturally, etc. The debate is not in specific about the existence of God in any way, shape or form, but is about the superiority of the belief over the other. The burden of proof is on me, and it is the duty of Con to show me how my proof is incorrect or wrong.

Superior in this sense means more beneficial/helpful to society, to mankind.

The votes must come with a detailed summary as to why they felt the person the person deserved the points, which should consist of the minimum of eight-hundred characters. The vote must be impartial. Again, this is not about which is "true," but which is "superior." Otherwise, the vote will be considered a vote bomb.

There can be absolutely no slander, insult to character, insult to the other's religion or any of the like.

The first round is acceptance, the next round is myself elaborating on what Pantheism/Panentheism is and why it is superior, and then the rebuttals.

To make things interesting, I am giving a guarantee that I will show by the end that to not accept Pantheism/Panentheism over Atheism is a desire to be selfish, individualistic to a fault, and ignorant.
StevenDixon

Con

I would like to point out that this not simply a debate about the benefits of labeling the totality of existence as god. Pro has given a "Guarentee" that to not accept pantheism over atheism is the DESIRE to be selfish, the DESIRE to be individualistic, and the DESIRE to be ignorant to a fault. I commend pro for taking such a huge burden.

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.

Atheism-lack of belief in a conscious deity or conscious god

This distinction needs to be made because the Sun is technically "more powerful" than us, yet every atheists believes in the sun. Labeling a giant meteor that could destroy the planet as god, then saying "atheists don't believe in god, therefore they don't believe in meteors" would be a pure semantic game and this is NOT what the terms are referring to.

Hopefully this debate doesn't turn into a semantic exorcise, yet I feel it will be inevitable. I look forward to what will hopefully be a fruitful debate.
Debate Round No. 1
Talib.ul-Ilm

Pro

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.

1. Pantheism and Panentheism as a Belief

The totality of existence is God. While the individual things within the totality of existence are aspects of God. This is the belief of Pantheism. Panentheism is the same exact belief, but takes it a step further, saying that there is a transcendent source that is immaterial, completely unlike the universe, yet at the same time is also another part of God, another part of the totality of existence, which is God. I will say that this transcendent source is impersonal, not self-aware, and pure intellect.


2. Calling the Totality of Existence God

There is no other word, term and concept in all of the languages of mankind that is more powerful than the word, term and concept of "God." You can say that it is just semantics, and that it is just the idea behind the word that has the powerful effect, but this simply isn't true. As we all know, the majority of the world all perceives the word, "God," as being the most powerful word, term and concept in every language. You can make up a word, like "Jarwatabanee," and attach to it the same term, concept and power, but the fact is, the vast, vast majority of mankind wouldn't see it that way. As of right now, the vast, vast majority of mankind sees "God" as the most powerful word, term and concept. God, Dios, Allaah, Brahma, Monad, all of these words are already established with this term and concept, with this power. And they all mean the same thing, God.


And as GeoLaureate8 said:

"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.""

3. Psychological Superiority of Pantheism and Panentheism
Because of this belief, you see your family, your friends, your lovers, your enemies, your neighbors, your town, your state, your country, your very species, as one, and yourself as a mere piece of the whole. You see the environment, the many, many other species, animals, trees and plants, everything, as apart of you, it is you. For you are an aspect of God, every individual thing is an aspect of God. All is God.


What would this mean? This means that you are now inclined to be compassionate, merciful and caring to yourself, something that you already are without this belief. Except that now, "yourself" is everything that is.

When you're about to kill a bug with no good reason, you stop, refrain from doing so, because that bug is now "you." This applies to so many other scenarios, involving humans as well.

When you see the chopping down and destruction of the rainforests, destroying so many species in the process, you are now seeing yourself being chopped down and destroyed. You now on a deeper level feel the pain and suffering of those environments. This also applies to many other scenarios.

You're no longer allowed to view the world as black and white, everything is dependent upon multiple causes and conditions that allow it to be. This applies to everything. War, politics, suffering, and much more.

The Iraq War, the Afghanistan War, the Revolutionary War, all of these are no longer allowed to be seen in a black and white way. It wasn't just about dictators and the like, it was also about greed, politics and much more.

Would you hurt yourself? Not if you're sane. Well now "yourself" applies to all that exists. You are now more cautious of your actions. You are one with everything, and everything is one with you, everything is God all-mighty.

Now think of those we despise, the criminals, the rapists, pedophiles, murderers, thieves, and all of the like. The mentally insane. Now that you see them as yourself, you are more inclined to be more compassionate. You will now look upon these people through the lens of clarity, through Independent Origination. You will see that we as a people may very well have contributed a lot to their making, and then you will do your best to stop causing the causes.

4. The Foundations of Pantheism and Panentheism

You will find this belief, amazingly, all across the world. In the largest religion of mankind, Christianity, you find Gnosticism. In the second largest religion of mankind, Islan, you find Sufism. In the third largest religion of mankind, Hinduism, you find the Vedanta and various others. In the fourth largest religion of mankind, Buddhism, you find this belief as well. They all hold the belief of all being one, of all being God, with the exception of Buddhism, though Siddhartha himself did speak of a "Luminous Mind."


Even at the height of Greek Philosophy, before Christianity took hold of it, you find this belief in Neoplatonism.

5. The Spirituality of Pantheism and Panentheism

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.


Not only that, but these spiritual practices can also lead your mind to union with God, the totality of existence.

And so many practitioners of these practices experience bliss, contentment, true happiness, and all of the like. Panentheism could also be the explanation for the many spiritual experiences of religious people all over the world. Plotinus, the founder of Neoplatonism, actually meditated in a very, very similar way to Zen Buddhists, and described very much the same experience.

6. The Religion of Pantheism and Panentheism

Now on top of everything I have just told you, bundle it all into the most powerful social system known to mankind, a religion. Picture if you will the structure of the Catholic Church, but based upon everything above. But probably more democratic. Propagating this beautiful message and philosophy to our youth, our future generations. This religion combining all of these like-minded people under one flag, with the same message, we are one, we are all God.


7. What Con has to Prove

Con has to prove to me how we are not all connected, one, and not dependent upon various causes and conditions, interconnected.


Con has to show me how he could change the very concept attached to the word, "God," and attach it to another all new word, for all of mankind, realistically. Because as I see it, the concept is fixated permanently to the word "God" for every culture. Thanks mostly to Christianity and Islam.

Con has to show me how this belief system and philosophy is not superior to general Atheism. By general Atheism I mean how most Atheists simply disbelieve in God, and leave off at that. Neither trying to become spiritual, philosophical, or anything of the like. The laymen of Atheism if you will. Just as there are laymen of Theism, such as Christianity and Islam, who don't really go much further than the basics.
StevenDixon

Con

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 God

Pro 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 . 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 Panentheism

Here 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.
Debate Round No. 2
Talib.ul-Ilm

Pro

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...
  1. Self-preservation is in our nature.
  2. In Pantheism and Panentheism, the "Self" is all that is.
  3. 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.


Conclusion

Everything 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.
  1. Self-preservation is in our nature. Respecting ourselves is in our nature. Wanting to better ourselves is in our nature.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
StevenDixon

Con

God to a pantheist is synonymous with all things that exist

Atheists, do not deny that all things that exist actually exist, atheists believe it's meaningless to use the term god for all things that exist because of the confusion it may stir, since the days of the Arkadians and Sumerians, what people referred to as gods and deities were generally conscious(And the denial of these conscious concepts is what atheism is a rejection of). Anything you can derive from all that exists(aka what you call god), so can atheists, what we choose to call it is pure semantics.

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... 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."

You actually did contradict yourself.

You said

"There is no other word, term and concept in all of the languages of mankind that is more powerful than the word, term and concept of 'God.'"

Then you said

"God, Dios, Allaah, Brahma, Monad, all of these words are already established with this term and concept, with this power. And they all mean the same thing, God."

God is not the same word as dios, God is not the same word as Allaah, God is not the same word as Brahma. These are different words for somewhat similar concepts. What christians mean by the word god, is not what pythagoras meant by "monad". THese concepts are not identical and have REAL differences. CHristians are referring to a entity known as YHWH, while monad is referring to Divinity or the one. You are equivocating what is equal to a title,god or deity, to the beings with these titles or what people are referring to when they use those words. Brahma is the name of A god, a specific entity with it's own characteristics. In greek mythology there was several gods, every one of them had their own characteristics, yet they were all gods. THe concept of Dionysus does not have the same effect on a person as the concept of Yhwh, the threat of hell and gift of everlasting life makes people fear him and love him far more. So the concept does differ depending on the context in which god is used, what they have in common is that they are words used for entities with superhuman abilities, or are ultra powerful or supernatural.

Either way, this debate is not about whether or not you're justified in labeling all that exists as god but that labeling all that exists as god is somehow more beneficial than refusing to do so based on connotations.


"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."

Those elements obviously didn't allow him to infer a view as the one you claimed. Here's the thing, atheism is simply the lack of belief in god(conscious entity ala yhwh, ra, etc), pantheism is simply labeling all things that exist as god. Anything a pantheist can infer from existence, and atheist could infer equally...because they both believe that all things that exist, exists, just call it something different.

"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. "

But you said we are one according to the pantheist, that you view other things as you view YOU. Would you cut you? No, obviously, you were exaggerating in order to bring about some ethical revelation that ISN'T inherent in pantheism. In this statement you clearly make a distinction between things, which is exactly what I was trying to illustrate, everything is not "one". One doesn't gain a respect by labeling all things that exist, god, they label all things that exist, god, because they previously had that profound respect for the universe AS A WHOLE, not every single little detail. I have no need to show they're not connected, on the contrary, I specifically used earwax and toenails as an example because they ARE connected, they are not sentient nor feel and are a nuisence when they build up, we get rid of them and so do pantheists as you admitted. My point was that simply labeling all things that exists, god, does not allow a person to derive a system of ethics as you stated. Or else toenails wouldn't be cut, there's clear distinctions that must be made, as everyone must make, both atheists and pantheists are in the same boat.

Nothing inherent in pantheism requires them to think deeply before cutting trees. They know like an atheist knows that they are just cutting a part of all that exists for a commodity. Everything you said of the pantheist could be said of the atheist, yet nothing you said is inherent in either atheism or pantheism.

"There is nothing inherently spiritual about labelling the universe as God? Take a look at this...




          1. Self-preservation is in our nature.







          1. In Pantheism and Panentheism, the "Self" is all that is.







          1. Therefore the Pantheist and Panentheist is inclined to preserve himself, himself being all that is."





As I have demonstrated and as he admitted, pantheists don't LITERALLY believe everything is themselves but that they themselves as well as everything is a part of all that exists. This means the human instinct of self preservation does not kick in, as demonstrated by the fact pantheists don't collect their hair or fingernails and do eat meat. One could even say that nothing that happens to anyone matters, because they're actually composed of energy that's eternal so the self is preserved REGARDLESS of your actions. Calling all that exists, god, brings about NO psychological benefits, pro has only asserted such without providing actual reasons, just baseless connections that a pantheist could make but an atheist could easily make it as well, yet are inherent in neither.

My opponent continously equivocates. What the pantheist actually believes is that the starving children in africa are parts of all that exists(which atheists also believe) not a part of an actual living conscious god.

"Everything 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."

Yes, I don't see what this has to do with anything.

" 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?"

Why? This has nothing to do with what we're talking about. The fact things effect each other does not mean that EVERYTHING is one.

My opponent is constantly equivocating. When my opponent tells you that all is god, what he's really saying is that every face you see whether humans, plants, animals, etc are all a part of all that exists. Calling it god doesn't change this.

"God is a person whom we naturally want to revere, respect and love."

What?!!! WHat?!!! now god is a person? Make up your mind. God is all that exists, everyone that exists is a part of god, my hand is a part of a human, it is not human itself just as no person is god itself.

My opponent has not shown that pantheism is inherently superior to atheism, atheists and pantheists actually share the same beliefs but simpy label it something else. Pro still has not even ATTEMPTED to show that atheists are atheists because of a desire to be selfish, individualistic, and ignorant.
Debate Round No. 3
Talib.ul-Ilm

Pro

The Psychology Behind The Belief
  1. Self-preservation is in our nature. Respecting ourselves is in our nature. Wanting to better ourselves is in our nature.
  2. 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.
  3. Therefore the Pantheist is naturally inclined to preserve all that is, respect all that is, and try to better all that is.
Attaching Divinity To Creation
  1. Pantheism and Panentheism is a belief that attaches divinity to the universe.
  2. The word "universe" is a general word, a more scientific term, and attaches no divinity.
  3. Words like "God, Allah, Dios, Monad, Brahma" and all of the like are words and terms with divinity attached to them.
  4. Therefore the universe should be called by God, Allah, Dios, Monad, Brahma and all of the like.
The Psychology Behind Divinity
  1. People naturally treat the divine with respect, deep reverence, holiness and all of the like.
  2. The universe and all that is in it is seen as divine within Pantheism and Panentheism.
  3. Therefore people will naturally treat the universe and all that is in it with respect, deep reverence, holiness and all of the like.
The Highest Good Should Prevail
  1. Actions and ways of living that bring about the highest good, the most good, should always prevail over those that bring about less good, the least good or no good at all.
  2. Pantheism and Panentheism as an action, as a way of life, brings about the highest good, the most good. Especially when compared to Atheism.
  3. Therefore the actions and way of life people should take, should be that of Pantheism and Panentheism.
Pantheism and Panentheism As A Religion
  1. Religion is the greatest social system known to man. Religion unites people together under one common belief. Religion unites whole communities and nations together under one common belief. Religion provides social services to its members. Religion propagates the common belief to its members, future generations, and proselytizes those outside of it.
  2. Pantheism and Panentheism is a common belief with the potential to be a great religion.
  3. Therefore as a religion, Pantheism and Panentheism will unite people together under a common belief, uniting people, communities and nations together under one common belief, provide social services to its members, propagate the common belief to its members, future generations, and proselytize outside of it, bringing people into the religion and unite them under the common belief. (see: The Psychology Behind The Belief; The Psychology Behind Divinity; The Highest Good Should Prevail)
The Unlikely Attachment Of Divinity
  1. Pantheism and Panentheism attaches divinity to phenonema like toe nails, feces, urine and all of the like.
  2. Toe nails, feces, urine and all of the like are necessities to our authentic and realistic creation, having clear benefits and reasons for their processes and existence.
  3. Pantheists and Panentheists respect themselves, thereby respecting all that is (See: The Psychology Behind The Belief).
  4. Therefore Pantheists and Panentheists will respect phenomena like toe nails, feces, urine and all of the like, their necessity to our authentic and realistic creation, acknowledging the clear benefits and reasons behind their processes and existence.
Possible Cliches Against Pantheism And Panentheism

As you have seen Con point out, if a Pantheist will want to preserve, respect and revere all that is, he would not want to clip his toe nails, cut down trees, eat meat, and all of the like. But this I will now dub a cliche. It's not that they won't, because they still will, however they will have more of an appreciation and respect for these things. They will not become excessive in doing such things, and will be more thoughtful.

This also applies to enemies, criminals and all of the like. It's not that you will be a pacifist, or not do anything about these people, you will just be more compassionate and understanding, you will see these phenomena in a deeper way.

I'll add further to this as the debate continues.

Rebuttal

Con said that he doesn't see what makes us, us, has to do with any of this. He clearly didn't contemplate for too long on exactly what that meant. As I said, I would like to see Con explain how he would be the exact same person if I went back in time and took him as a child from those who raised him, and drop him off at a Buddhist temple. He will not be the same. Why won't he be the same? Because he is as much his environment, his society, his family, more so, than he is himself independently. This is a clear proof of our interconnection with all that exists.

Con said calling something God, or attaching divinity, to things like other humans, animals and plants don't change anything. See: The Psychology Behind Divinity. Clearly the foundations of Pantheism and Panentheism that I have shown you all has an effect on the way we percieve the world. If you see your enemy's face as the face of God, truly see it as such, you are more inclined to be compassionate and understanding, seeing him in a deeper way.

Atheism, Not The Highest Good

As you can see from the beginning, Atheism is not the highest good, it does not have the powerful social system of a religion, it's actually rather divided and individualistic. Atheists have nothing to unite them except for their disbelief in God in any way, shape or form, including that of Pantheism and Panentheism. Yet Pantheism and Panentheism are clearly more beneficial to the individual and the collective by far.

When one truly contemplates on the beliefs I have shown here, they will realize that it would be selfish and ignorant to not be a Pantheist and Panentheist.

And remember this new motto: The Highest Good Should Prevail.

StevenDixon

Con

"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"



    1. 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...

Debate Round No. 4
Talib.ul-Ilm

Pro

The Psychology Behind The Belief
  1. Self-preservation is in our nature. Respecting ourselves is in our nature. Wanting to better ourselves is in our nature. That which we percieve as divine is naturally looked upon with deep reverence, holiness and the like.
  2. In Pantheism and Panentheism, the "Self" is all that is. All that exists is also held to be divine.
  3. Therefore the Pantheist is naturally inclined to preserve all that is, respect all that is, and try to better all that is. As well as give deep reverence for all that is, considering it to be divine, holy, and the like.
This is the very essence of Pantheism and Panentheism as I have defined it. Everything is held to be divine and apart of yourself. While you are also held to be divine, and apart of everything else. Everything is one. So you have two huge factors here. Firstly, everything is one, you are apart of the universe, you are as much your friends, family and society as they are you. Secondly, everything is divine, you are divine, your family is divine, and you see divinity in the same sense that. This is what Pantheism and Panentheism is, this is how Pantheists and Panentheists view all that is.

Con can argue against these ideas as much as he would like, but he completely misses the point. He may not see the world in this way, but a Pantheist and Panentheist does, and that is the point. The whole debate is about whether or not Pantheism and Panentheism is superior to Atheism. And the very definition of Atheism is the disbelief in God, in any way, shape or form, and in general would also include the disbelief in anything supernatural, such as the attribution of divinity as a Pantheist and Panentheist would do with all that is.

But as you clearly see, there are dramatic psychological impacts upon the individual when they view the world in such a way. Not only does the Pantheist and Panentheist see all that is as interconnected, but he or she sees it all as divine, holy.

So the true basis of this debate is to decide which is superior in benefit to the individual and all of mankind. Con hasn't actually shown how Atheism isn't inferior to this philosophy and belief system, not at all. And that is the basis of the debate. Which is superior.

Pantheism and Panentheism As A Religion
  1. Religion is the greatest social system known to man. Religion unites people together under one common belief. Religion unites whole communities and nations together under one common belief. Religion provides social services to its members. Religion propagates the common belief to its members, future generations, and proselytizes those outside of it.
  2. Pantheism and Panentheism is a common belief with the potential to be a great religion.
  3. Therefore as a religion, Pantheism and Panentheism will unite people together under a common belief, uniting people, communities and nations together under one common belief, provide social services to its members, propagate the common belief to its members, future generations, and proselytize outside of it, bringing people into the religion and unite them under the common belief.
Not only does Pantheism and Panentheism have the most powerful psychological effect on the individual and the collective, it also has the potential as a religion, to have the workings of the Catholic Church. Religion is the most powerful social system known to mankind, and this religion is founded upon the above belief system, where all is one, where you are not yourself, but many, and all is divine, holy.

The Highest Good Should Prevail
  1. Actions and ways of living that bring about the highest good, the most good, should always prevail over those that bring about less good, the least good or no good at all.
  2. Pantheism and Panentheism as an action, as a way of life, brings about the highest good, the most good. Especially when compared to Atheism.
  3. Therefore the actions and way of life people should take, should be that of Pantheism and Panentheism.
Remember this very sound and golden rule when you vote. Because as you can clearly see, A religion founded upon the understanding and belief system of Pantheism and Panentheism is most certainly the highest good. To prove this, I challenge Con to show me how a religion founded upon this understanding and belief system is not the highest good, and to give an alternative that is even better. Because, remember, this debate is about which belief system is superior, not true or correct, but superior.

And it is because of this very golden rule, that to remain an Atheist, and not follow the highest good, would be selfish, the desire for individualism to a fault, and ignorant.

Pantheism and Panentheism As A Religion
  1. Religion is the greatest social system known to man. Religion unites people together under one common belief. Religion unites whole communities and nations together under one common belief. Religion provides social services to its members. Religion propagates the common belief to its members, future generations, and proselytizes those outside of it.
  2. Pantheism and Panentheism is a common belief with the potential to be a great religion.
  3. Therefore as a religion, Pantheism and Panentheism will unite people together under a common belief, uniting people, communities and nations together under one common belief, provide social services to its members, propagate the common belief to its members, future generations, and proselytize outside of it, bringing people into the religion and unite them under the common belief.
This is an example of the power that the greatest social system known to mankind can have on us. Now imagine Pantheism and Panentheism utilizing the power of this social system.

Cliches

Being upon this understanding and way of life in no way means you are a complete pacifist, or that you wouldn't cut down trees and eat meat. It really means that you would simply appreciate and respect all that is much more. Even food would taste better when you truly appreciate it under this way of life and understanding.

This understanding and way of life attributes divinity and likeness of phenomena like toe nails, urine, feces and the like to yourself. However this is just like the above, you have a deeper understanding and appreciation of these sorts of phenomena.

Rebuttals

And now with the remainder of the final round, I will give rebuttals to Con's understanding of Pantheism and Panentheism, and show you why he is misunderstanding it.

Con seems to believe that because a Pantheist and Panentheist labels the universe as a deity, attributing divinity to it, that everything in it is a deity, this is not so, because the individual phenomena within Pantheism and Panentheism are aspects of the whole which is the deity. So no, your dog would not be a god, your dog would be an aspect of the whole which is god.

Rape, murder, stealing and the like are the result of the individual aspects of the whole, which is considered to be god, going astray, going into darkness and not meeting their full potential. In fact, Pantheism and Panentheism clearly acknowledges these phenomena as a result of other phenomena. For example, a rapist or pedophile is very likely to have been raped or molested himself in the past, here, the Pantheist and Panentheists would look upon such a man with compassion and understanding, because they would know that this man is the result of various causes and conditions to have brought him about, and would do their best to prevent these causes and conditions in the future, all the while trying to help this man, understanding why he is the way he is. This same thing applies to the rest of these kinds of phenomena.

Voters, remember what this debate is about, not which is true or correct, but which is superior. Remember that I am arguing for Pantheism and Panentheism as I have defined it, and not as Con has understood it.

Google: Pantheism, Panentheism, Platonism, Neoplatonism, Gnosticism, Sufism, Daoism, Vedanta, Hinduism, and anything else that is related.

Judge for yourself. I drew from all of these.
StevenDixon

Con

I would like to point out a disgusting tactic semantic tactic



"The Psychology Behind The Belief


    1. Self-preservation is in our nature. Respecting ourselves is in our nature. Wanting to better ourselves is in our nature. That which we percieve as divine is naturally looked upon with deep reverence, holiness and the like.
    1. In Pantheism and Panentheism, the "Self" is all that is. All that exists is also held to be divine.
    1. Therefore the Pantheist is naturally inclined to preserve all that is, respect all that is, and try to better all that is. As well as give deep reverence for all that is, considering it to be divine, holy, and the like.


This is the very essence of Pantheism and Panentheism as I have defined it."

Here we now see that he's not talking about actual pantheism, but a perverse psuedo-pantheism with ATTACHED definitions. This was not a debate about pro's weird religious beliefs, but about actual pantheism. I would easily say, hey look what atheism+ says, they're for social justice and their priority is charity. Yet...as we all know, this is not inherent in atheism, nor is anything pro has said inherent in pantheism.

The disbelief in the supernatural is also NOT inherent in atheism, I myself know someone in real life that does not believe in god but believes in ghosts, this person is an atheist and believes in the supernatural. The reason I make a point of this is because this is another example of pro playing semantic games, attaching definitions to words that don't inherently require that belief.

I've demonstrated that he does not believe that everything is himself, yet he keeps saying this. Pantheism does not entail that someone views the world the way pro keeps insinuating it does, he is giving his specific attachments as if that is inherent in pantheism. He has not demonstrated one psychological impact, he merely implied that calling all things that exist makes you view all things that exist the same way a christian views god, but of course this is preposterous, the christian god is conscious, has will, and holds their souls in the balance as well as other gods. All that is, simply is all that is and the pantheist knows this.


    1. "Actions and ways of living that bring about the highest good, the most good, should always prevail over those that bring about less good, the least good or no good at all.

    1. Pantheism and Panentheism as an action, as a way of life, brings about the highest good, the most good. Especially when compared to Atheism.

    1. Therefore the actions and way of life people should take, should be that of Pantheism and Panentheism.

Remember this very sound and golden rule when you vote. Because as you can clearly see, A religion founded upon the understanding and belief system of Pantheism and Panentheism is most certainly the highest good."

Once again, these are attached definitions. Pro doesn't define what good is according to a pantheist, as I said earlier, if the universe is god then one could deduce the highest good is whatever happens. In reality, what they consider good has NOTHING to do with labeling the universe god, they reach these conclusions independant of pantheism. The golden rule isn't inherent in pantheism in any, way, shape, or form. A religion that doesn't require you think of feces, rapists, and murderes as divine and to view them as you, would be alot better.

The fact a large amount of atheists are constantly talking about how great the Golden Rule is and follow it is evidence that a person is an atheist is so because he desires to be selfish, individualistic, and ignorant to a fault. Not following the golden rule doesn't make someone ignorant, nor does it illustrate the desire to be. Not following the rule doesn't mean someone is individualistic considering Plato didn't believe it, yet his ideal society was entirely based on community and the individual wasn't to be focused on. The nazi party was entirely community based, yet they didn't treat the jews as themselves. Pro continues to stretch words, extend reasoning that makes NO sense.


In conclusion

This entire debate was Pro being deceptive, extending definitions and beliefs where they didn't belong, giving his own views as if they represent pantheism.

He did not show that both pantheism and panentheism is superior to atheism, he didn't even define what good is to a pantheist.

As I said twice and with no protest from pro and as he made a "gaurantee" to make it interesting,

"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."

I would hope that no person could possibly believe he met this burden considering he had to show that the reason atheists were infact atheists is because they are selfish, individualistic, and ignorant. The only evidence he offered for this is that the golden rule is not inherent in atheism, yet this claim is about the persons motives, I properly refuted this claim by pointing out a large portion of atheists do infact live by the golden rule and that the golden rule has nothing to do with knowledge or being social(Plato and hitler as examples of people who didn't follow the golden rule, yet were the opposite of individualistic).

My opponent used no sources, I used several.

Because pro did not even come close to meeting his burden of proof, I implore everyone to vote con.
Debate Round No. 5
177 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by StevenDixon 3 years ago
StevenDixon
A glorious victory.
Posted by StevenDixon 4 years ago
StevenDixon
Grain, exactly.
Posted by Graincruncher 4 years ago
Graincruncher
Just saying that you have done something doesn't mean you have done it. Just asserting something does not make it true. Accusing people who disagree of not understanding does not bolster your position. I'm sorry Talib, but that is all you have done here.

You also appear to have confused The Golden Rule with some sort of Utilitarianism. The Golden Rule is essentially Kant's Categorical Imperative applied to personal action. Utilitarianism is about maximising social good.
Posted by StevenDixon 4 years ago
StevenDixon
Let's see if we can go 3 for 3 with Talib's friends.
Posted by makhdoom5 4 years ago
makhdoom5
man there are 10 days i will read the deabte and vote than.
so long debate.
plz always avoid unnecessary things and make comprehended debates.
loll.
well.
lets see what happened there.
Posted by Talib.ul-Ilm 4 years ago
Talib.ul-Ilm
Summary of the Philosophy:

Reality has two main parts, creator and creation. The creator is not self-aware and doesn't affect the universe in a personal way, it is merely a powerhouse of infinite production that creates the universe out of necessity.

Reality has attached to it the concept of divinity and oneness, interconnection. True belief is presupposed, and would entail the individual to act and live accordingly. Meaning that one would live as if all was one and interconnected, and divine.

Every individual phenomena is an aspect, and not the whole. There is a difference between animate and inanimate aspects, as well as a difference between sentient animate aspects and non-sentient animate aspects.

The belief system is backed by the powerful social system of religion.
Posted by Talib.ul-Ilm 4 years ago
Talib.ul-Ilm
"Psych Behind Belief - Self-respect isn't "in our nature", nor is self-improvement."

I've never seen a mentally healthy person who didn't respect themselves. Or someone who didn't improve over the years.

"Divinity in Creation"

It's a choice to attach divinity to the universe, and when you have true belief, this will affect your outlook. The negative views are the result of believing there to be evil in the world, all of it is perception.

"Psych Behind Divinity"

You mean the divine as far as the God of Abraham? Sure. But in general, people treat the divine with respect.

"Highest Good"

This had a context to it. And it was substantiated.

"P&P as Religion"

I selected the best parts, built upon the many philosophies behind them.

"Unlikely Attachment"

This was explained.
Posted by Talib.ul-Ilm 4 years ago
Talib.ul-Ilm
"Foundations"

I gave a reason as to why I brought it up. Didn't you pay attention?

"Spirituality"

That's because most Atheists are. I also mentioned the difference of laymen Atheists. As far as the experiences from meditation, I didn't think I had to really mention the sources, people could look it up, and I was rushing, which I regret doing. If you want sources, look up the benefits of meditation. Also the religious practices from the above, the foundations, can all be utilized to bring one's mind in closer union with the concept of oneness.

"You list several names for god, thus refuting your earlier claim that only the word 'god' - and not the concept behind the word - can have the greatest meaning for all people."

I wasn't very clear about it until the end. But at the end I showed that it was the concept of divinity that was important, and that these words all across the world have this very concept already attached to them.

"You again state the consciousness/self-awareness fallacy as if it were fact. Even if it were not an incoherent claim, it is a factor that would undermine your argument anyway. As an atheist, the concept of 'universe' is identical to an unconscious force of creation. There is then no need or sense in using the word 'god' in the first place."

I'll give you that, the use of those words were a fallacy of sorts. But I was trying to make a point. However there is a need and sense in attaching divinity to the universe, if there is true belief along with it.
Posted by Talib.ul-Ilm 4 years ago
Talib.ul-Ilm
"Atheism - this is a highly selective and non-representative definition. You also mention the logically incoherent point of 'conscious but non-aware' here."

Atheism was presupposed as the disbelief in god in any way, shape or form. I was trying to show that not every definition of god has to entail consciousness and being self-aware, which is true, as god as a whole in this philosophy is not conscious in the same way the God of Abraham would be. Yet at the same time, because we are aspects of god, this makes certain parts of god conscious.

"Totality of Existence"

If you read further on in the debate, I finally clarified as to what I mean, and that is the concept of divinity attached to the word is what gives the psychological power. And "universe" does not give that power or have that concept attached to it.

"Psychological Superiority"

Are you going to tell me that true belief wouldn't result in any psychological effects on the individual at all? That true belief wouldn't entail acting and living according to the belief? And yes, I did explore the implications of the oneness, you clearly didn't pay attention or read the entire debate.

And as far as the philosophy I was promoting, I did explore the difference between Pantheism and Panentheism, in round two, pay attention.
Posted by Talib.ul-Ilm 4 years ago
Talib.ul-Ilm
"No. All you did in the argument (and continue to do in the comments) is make several unsupported assertions, claim they are true and then demand others show they aren't. This is textbook burden-shifting. You are also now trying to disown several of the comments you made at the start of the debate."

I gave examples as to why these beliefs would affect the individual. The main evidence being that the individual would truly believe in the philosophy in the first place, thereby living and acting according to it.

"You have not shown that the system would be necessarily psychologically, socially or culturally more beneficial to mankind than any other option."

Yeah, I did. Read the debate. I gave many examples. And just like the above, true belief would entail acting and living according to the philosophy/religion.

"If a system isn't practical - i.e. isn't 'true' in the sense it could never actually happen - then it cannot be superior because it is an invalid solution to the problem posed."

So then you completely dismiss away true belief? Because that would entail that the individual would live and act accordingly.

"At no point did you do this."

It was in a context, and yes I did. I showed that because of the golden rule to implement the highest good, the philosophy I promoted should replace Atheism.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by calculatedr1sk 4 years ago
calculatedr1sk
Talib.ul-IlmStevenDixonTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro made many assertions without backing them up, and there was little progress made towards achieving his burden of proof. Con wasn't really convincing in demonstrating that Atheism offered superior morality, but he didn't really have to be since he didn't grab for the the BoP as boldly as Pro did. For me, the closest Pro came to scoring points was in the section where he discussed the unity of religious belief, and the idea that pantheism inspires respect and compassion for your enemy, and for the wicked. What might have made this work is if he could have somehow shown that 1) this yields a more harmonious and prosperous society, which he probably could have done, and 2) Atheists cannot also have compassion for their enemies or for the wicked, which would have been much harder to prove. Points were awarded to Con for conduct because Pro equivocated and used semantics, and Con also cited several sources while Pro did not.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 4 years ago
Ragnar
Talib.ul-IlmStevenDixonTied
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: Countering A.WitherspoonVI. I disagree with calling it a votebomb as it's only a three point vote; but it gives points for areas other than argument without giving any reason for them. Thus countering until the RFD improves, at which point someone please notify me so that I may cast a real vote.
Vote Placed by leojm 4 years ago
leojm
Talib.ul-IlmStevenDixonTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: Can't decide right now, need more time.
Vote Placed by drafterman 4 years ago
drafterman
Talib.ul-IlmStevenDixonTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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: RFD in Comments
Vote Placed by larztheloser 4 years ago
larztheloser
Talib.ul-IlmStevenDixonTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 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:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro did have BOP, so con was right to say they didn't have to prove anything. Pro was right, however, to claim the right to definitions, which I thought were reasonable in this debate. Structure was generally poor on both sides with lots of point-for-point and excessive use of formatting. Pro's whole argument can be summed up in one word: unity. Would have been good to see more detailed analysis on why unity is superior to disparity, but I got some kind of sense that holism has intrinsic moral value (ie empathy etc). Con had two responses. The first, weaker, was to reject that premise. The second, stronger, was to claim this to be non-exclusive with atheism. Although pro was able to moot the first, I didn't feel they effectively answered the second, why atheism cannot also have some moral value. Con should have pushed this a lot more and developed more analysis on it, like what that moral value is, but I felt con did enough to stop pro achieving their onus. Questions? Message me.
Vote Placed by A.WitherspoonVI 4 years ago
A.WitherspoonVI
Talib.ul-IlmStevenDixonTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:52 
Reasons for voting decision: "Con seems to believe that because a Pantheist and Panentheist labels the universe as a deity, attributing divinity to it, that everything in it is a deity, this is not so, because the individual phenomena within Pantheism and Panentheism are aspects of the whole which is the deity. So no, your dog would not be a god, your dog would be an aspect of the whole which is god." that was really the deciding factor for me.
Vote Placed by Skeptikitten 4 years ago
Skeptikitten
Talib.ul-IlmStevenDixonTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Points for sources given to Con, as he cited several reliable and credible sources and Pro cited none. Points for argumentation given to Con, due mainly to the fact that Pro never satisfied the Burden of Proof that he himself took on willingly. Pro claimed that he would demonstrate that atheism was a DESIRE to be selfish, ignorant, and individualistic to a fault, yet none of his arguments demonstrated that atheists display this desire. In fact, he failed to demonstrate that that atheism in general displays these characteristics. Pro also committed several major logical fallacies (including an attempt to shift the burden of proof in later rounds to force Con to disprove his claims) in his argumentation and gave non-standard definitions for pantheism and panentheism that were not laid out in the resolution so they could be agreed upon by both Pro and Con.