I'll agree with that I suppose.
I'll agree too.
I’ve always disagreed with the scientific pantheists than pantheism isn’t a theism. They do that because they feel “theism”
must be a being that is a person.
The scientific pantheists depersonalize the cosmos as atheists do. Because they’re atheists. But then they turn around and call the depersonalized (and thus devalued?) cosmos “awesome and worshipful”. I think maybe pantheism was a poor choice of label for themselves. So, as you suggest, they should consider just saying “spiritual atheist” or “religious naturalist” instead. And instead of insisting pantheism isn’t a theism, they should insist that religion is not theism nor supernaturalism. Because, then they’d be right…
Sometimes religion contains theism and sometimes supernaturalism too. But sometimes not.