Atheism is more rational than scientology

There is absolutely no way I can accept your definition of atheism, as atheism has no doctrine. It is purely the lack of belief in the existence of deities. (1) This definition is given by the American Atheist group, and they even go further to say that atheism is not a belief system nor is it a religion. This definition is similar to the Wikipedia definition and the other Merriam Webster definition, my opponent did not offer this as a definition, which says atheism is a disbelief in the existence of deity. (2,3) My opponent has said I did not provide proof as to why atheism is more rational than Scientology, for that I apologize and offer it here. Atheism is more rational as it rejects the existence of any deity (Xenu included), as there is no natural/scientific evidence for any deity. I agree with the definition of naturalism given by my opponent, however I will also state that science is unable to answer every question at present but that is due to lack of present knowledge. This will clearly change as more knowledge is obtained and we develop even better instrumentation and unified theories. This agrees well with my opponents view of naturalism, but there is nothing wrong with saying I do not know the answer to this question as that is rational. What would be irrational would be to assume a god behind things that you cannot explain, especially when there is no evidence for any god. The argument for epistemological anarchism is all to reach one conclusion, and that is to show that we cannot truly know anything scientifically. But let me point out that this same argument can be used for anything (i. e. the god concept). Now the problem arises how can my opponent be sure that when he asserts that a supernatural cause is more probable, as he too cannot know anything. I think it would be best if my opponent rejected this argument, otherwise this debate is pointless as he can reject anything I say and I can do the same. This unexciting conclusion to this debate would then be centered around the acceptance of this argument. It might be interesting to the voters to note that the proponent of this idea of epistemological anarchism was in favor of the scientific method until some scientific minds of the time (Einstein and Feynman) irritated him. (4) Let us remember that these two names are probably the most important scientists of the last century. I have a feeling what my opponents rebuttal to this will be that Scientology does not only draw wisdom from the supernatural but also the scientific. However, Scientology has made no scientific contributions that I am aware of. In fact it can be argued that Scientology is anti science with its strong and dangerous disapproval of psychiatry. (5,6) It should be noted that this is believed by psychiatrists with recognized medical training to be due to the rejection of the psychiatric (so called spiritual) methods developed by the founder of Scientology L. Ron Hubbard. (7) Maybe I should also note here that L. Ron Hubbard the father of Scientology is also quoted as saying "The way to make a million dollars is to start a religion", and this was before Scientology was founded by him. (8) Moving on to the Kalam Cosmological argument. My opponent has asserted that there must be a creator as the universe is finite. This is a bold claim as scientists won the Nobel prize in physics in 2011 for their work that showed the universe is ever expanding hence it is infinite. (9) Additionally, it has been shown that our concept of nothing is a quantum vacuum from which creation can happen as can be seen to occur in the Casmir effect. (10) Additionally this has been expounded upon in a popular science book by the renowned physicist Lawrence Krauss, who has shown that our Universe can come from nothing and a creator is not needed. (11) This means we do not need a supernatural cause to start the universe, it can be a result of its own existence. So my opponents statement that naturalism/atheism cannot explain the universe is not true. In fact if I may be so bold as to say, these explanations are rational. My opponent then addressed the tenants of Scientology by looking at the example of reincarnation. The proof given for this is the case of Shanti Devi. The problem with accepting this case, is that it is one among billions of Hindu believers. Secondly the people propagating this myth are Hindus themselves, and it can be argued that there is a bias and made up facts. Third, and this is important she was not always correct as some people ascertain. (12) The inaccuracies in her story can be seen in the cited news article, where she said she did not know the name of her husband but would recognize him when she saw him. (12) How can she have all this knowledge and not know his name? Then she gives this piece of evidence to an uncle and no one else. This is not reliable, as the uncle could be making everything up and tutoring the child. Then she recognized her husband when he came to Delhi to meet her, I mean she knew he was coming so its not so much recognition as plain rationality. When I meet someone I don't know at the airport for business, I don't act shocked instead I shake their hand and welcome them. She also had a link with the child of her so called husband. Two children getting along is not uncommon at all. Then she was happy on the train to see her husband, or her new friend? And the list of questions continues to grow. This story has so many holes if you look at it rationally and for this reason I reject it. Lets be clear that it was not a controlled environment and there is no evidence for what people claim are her memories except for what her parents and uncle say. Who again as I have pointed out have a bias. I think this shows that the case my opponent has given for reincarnation can be explained using rational thought. As such the idea of reincarnation is irrational and the second tenant of Scientology is irrational. In closing I would just like to reiterate what I stated in the beginning of this round. If my opponent clings to the epistemological anarchism argument then we can not progress. I hand the debate back to my opponent (1) . http://atheists.org... (2) . http://www.merriam-webster.com...(3) . http://en.wikipedia.org... (4) . http://en.wikipedia.org... (5) . http://iamchristianiamanatheist.blogspot.kr...(6) . http://www.salon.com... (7) . http://www.freedomofmind.com... (8) . http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org...(9) . http://www.nobelprize.org... (10) . http://www.scientificamerican.com... (11) . http://en.wikipedia.org... (12) . http://news.google.com...