Atheism is more rational than scientology

Lets begin. Definitions: Atheism: The doctrine that there is no deity. http://www.merriam-webster.com... Naturalism: A theory denying that an event or object has a supernatural significance; specifically : the doctrine that scientific laws are adequate to account for all phenomena http://www.merriam-webster.com... Introduction Firstly I would like to point out that my opponent has failed to demonstrate the irrationality of Scientology. He has stated the tenants of Scientology are at odds with Atheism and they lack scientific evidence, therefore they are irrational. However Pro did not provide to us any reason to believe in Atheism or Science. I shall provide arguments to demonstrate one should not put his faith into Naturalism and that Atheism is no more rational then Scientology. I agree to and shall defend the three tenants of Scientology and Xenu which my opponent has listed. The Problems with An Atheistic Universe. Epistemological Anarchism. If there is no Supernatural or deity then one must rely on Science and Naturalism to understand the universe. Consider the following: -Has there throughout the history of science been a fixed scientific method and scientific world view? No. -Since there has not been a fixed scientific understanding then our acceptance of the contemporary understaning is an Authoritarian and dogmatic assumption. This limits the scope of knowledge to what can be empirically proven by contemporary science. -Therefore no matter how solid, even the most grounded and well proven theory in the history of science is still limited to the scientific method and paradigms of understanding. -Since the rules of science are not fixed, then you must examine the universe outside of mere scientific context and base your beliefs accordingly. -One limits knowledge if he only thinks within the boundaries of contemporary scientific understanding and shuns all spiritual and supernatural explanation of the universe. Since Atheism and Naturalism rely solely on science to explain the universe they are a poor base for rational thought. The material universe and empirical evidence is the limit of understanding the for Atheists, thus the greatest understanding of the universe they may have is only a partial truth. Scientology which practices drawing wisdom from both science and spirituality has the possibility to understand truths that exist beyond the material universe. This makes Scientology a more rational world view then Atheism. http://www.marxists.org... Arguments based on the philosophy of Professor Paul Feyerable. Kalaam Cosmological Argument 1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause. 2. The universe began to exist. 3. Therefore, the universe has a cause. Premise 1 is confirmed by our collective understanding of the world and cosmos. The fish swimming in my fish tank was born. The stars that twinkle in the sky formed via gravity billions of years. The keyboard I am typing on was crafted in a crafted in a factory. Premise 2 is confirmed by simple logic. For example consider Richard Dawkins was sitting here in my room as I typed this argument. Now imagine I had 40 Richard Dawkins in my room, you can visualize and comprehend that (as uncomfortable as it would be). But now try to imagine I had an infinite number of Richard Dawkins in this room, or even better infinite minus 1. How many Richard Dawkins would I have if there were infinite minus one in my room? Logically you would be able to count just how many Richard Dawkins there were, but you simply can't, the mathematical answer is merely infinitely minus one. In light of this fact the famous German mathematician David Hilbert said, “The infinite is nowhere to be found in reality. It neither exists in nature nor provides a legitimate basis for rational thought…the role that remains for the infinite to play is solely that of an idea.” Since the infinite does not exist in reality then logically the universe cannot be infinite. Thus the universe is finite, since it is finite, it had a beginning. Premise 3, which is the logical conclusion on premises 1 and 2, implies a "causer." The Universe could not have happened ex nihilo nor could the universe create itself. It must be noted that since there is nothing prior to the cause of the universe, it cannot be explained scientifically, as this would imply the existence of antecedent determining conditions. How can determining conditions exist before time and space? Additionally to have the “causer” exist before time and space is absurd. Thus the cause must transcend both matter and time. The only logical explanation is the causer is uncaused and omnipresent. The belief in the Scientology is warranted by these implications as they posit such a causer known as God. Atheism cannot provide an answer to what the causer is, while Scientology has a possible explanation. It would illogical to claim Atheism the more rational belief when the creation of the universe is unexplainable by science. http://www.hamzatzortzis.com... The superb Koranic lecturer Hamza Tzoritz is the resource I used to write my KCA argument. The Dawkins example is of my own imagination. Reincarnation Throughout most all of human history there have been reports of reincarnation. Chief among these reports is the story of Shanti Devi. She was born to a poor Indian family in the slum of Delhi. At the age of four the girl claimed that she lived in Mathura (some hundred-sixty miles away) and had a husband. The parents assumed she was mentally ill and asked she stop speaking of such details. When she entered school she repeated this to her teacher. A high school teacher agreed to send a letter to the husband and confirm the story if she could tell him her husband’s name. She had told him that it was Kedarnath Chaube. Kedarnarth replied immediately, he confirmed