The Instigator
Pro (for)
11 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Atheism is more rational than scientology

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 3 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/6/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 992 times Debate No: 41791
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (4)
Votes (3)




My opponent and I haver agreed to debate the following topic.
Atheism is more rational than Scientology.

In this debate I will try to show why atheism is more rational, and my opponent will try to show why Scientology is more rational.

I hope we can make it an interesting debate, and thanks to my opponent for accepting.


I accept the resolution I assuming th eburden of prrof is shared. I await you arguments. ~Alex
Debate Round No. 1


Thanks Alex,I hope we can have an interesting debate.

Scientology is irrational from an Atheist perspective, as it adheres to central tenants which are at odds with atheism. From the official Scientology website we can see that three of the central truths (tenants) of Scientology are.(1)
(a) Man is an immortal spiritual being.
(b) His experience extends well beyond a single lifetime and
(c) His capabilities are unlimited, even if not presently realized.
These tenants do not necessarily directly conflict with Atheism, as Atheism is purely the rejection of belief in a god.(2) However, these central tenants are certainly not rational. Rational is defined as been based on facts and reason, with no emotion or feelings clouding these though processes.(3)

If we apply rationality to these tenants, we can see that two out of three are not rational in any sense. Considering point (a), we know man is mortal as there has never been any scientific fact presented for immortality when a person dies. Also, this is similar to the Abrahamic religions (Christianity,Islam) which teach of an after life and this is at odds with atheism. Point (b) is also considered irrational, as we again have no facts which show that a persons experiences extend beyond a single lifetime. This tenant is similar to the reincarnation tenants of Hinduism,which also have gods and are at odds with atheism.

Point (c) I would agree is not irrational, as everyone has the ability to better themselves. This does not mean however that Scientology is rational. For example Harry Potter is rational in that it mentions a city called London, however this does not mean magic is rational.

However, the irrationality of Scientology does not stop at the belief in an afterlife. Scientology believes that an evil alien overlord Xenu came to Earth and killed millions of people (from other planets) using hydrogen bombs. These souls of these people then clustered around the surviving people that somehow survived the hydrogen bombs, and this is what makes us do bad things.(4,5) I think the best explanation of this is given by the makers of South Park.


As far as I am aware, there has never been any evidence for alien life forms, I think it is only fair that my opponent has to show proof for alien life if he wants to even contemplate the existence of Xenu.

I hand the debate back to my opponent,and cant wait to hear his rebuttals.



Lets begin.


Atheism: The doctrine that there is no deity.

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


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.

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.
The superb Koranic lecturer Hamza Tzoritz is the resource I used to write my KCA argument. The Dawkins example is of my own imagination.


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

Debate Round No. 2


I thank my opponent for an interesting response, but I have to say I strongly disagree with your definition of atheism.

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


justleftofsanity forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3


My opponent has forfeited the last round, as such I extend my previous rounds arguments.

I also would like to add, that there is no scientific evidence for Xenu that I am aware of.

I wish my opponent well in future debates.


justleftofsanity forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by DudeStop 3 years ago
Go Chrome.
Posted by iamanatheistandthisiswhy 3 years ago
Internet Explore, use Mozilla its way easier and safer. :) No problem we have lots of time to debate.
Posted by justleftofsanity 3 years ago
It posted while I reviewing.... I still had room and time.... no matter I will give answers to Xenu at the beginning of my next speech. Sorry.... Internet Explorer fails me again.
Posted by justleftofsanity 3 years ago
that his wife died shortly before Shanti"s birth and the details about her home she had sepified to the teacher. At this the teacher arranged a trip to Mathura. The story was quickly picked up by the media and shortly after a committee of 15 national leaders and intellectual was formed to investigate. Gandhi himself met with the young girl before the trip was conducted. To assure that this was not a hoax put on by her parents the young girl was separated from her family upon arrival at Mathura via train. She led the investigators to the home she specified years before, without any help, through the city she had never visited. Upon arrival Shanti was intentionally introduced to a man as her past brother in law whom was actually her husband. To the astonishment of the witnesses she rightly replied that the man was in fact her husband and not her past brother in law. The husband doubted this as evidence, to substantiate her claim she explained to the man how they managed to have sexual intercourse (information only she would know) despite the debilitating arthritis she was suffering. To this the husband confirmed that she was indeed who she had claimed to be.
Dr. Ian Stevenson, leading authority on reincarnation, stated this:
"I also interviewed Shanti Devi, her father, and other pertinent witnesses, including Kedarnath, the husband claimed in her previous life. My research indicates that she made at least 24 statements of her memories that matched the verified facts."
We must conclude that reincarnation which is a core tenant of scientology cannot be dismissed as irrational given the well documented and numerous the reports of it. An Atheistic universe in which there is no supernatural, god, or afterlife is less probable given the fact that the historical support for reincarnation which violates that universe. Certainly though one may conclude that it is contrary to all we know about reincarnation to claim Atheism as more rational then Scientology.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by EndarkenedRationalist 3 years ago
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: FF on CON's part. Since CON never got to continue refuting PRO's points, arguments go to PRO. PRO used more reliable sources than CON. It was a decent debate up until the forfeits.
Vote Placed by kbub 3 years ago
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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: FF.
Vote Placed by Guidestone 3 years ago
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit