Lemmings, please read the post don't blindly downvote because you don't like the title - this is a debate forum so if you don't want to debate, unsubscribe or just ignore, thank you!


final edit: I guess I overlooked the sentence in the sidebar that says, “A place for theists to come and debate atheists”. I am myself atheist (using the definition in that same sidebar) so please forgive me and treat this as a debate between atheists. Thanks everyone for the great responses so far. The original post follows:

As the title says - if you believe that our scientific worldview is accurate and mostly complete, and that consciousness is entirely explained by the interaction of atoms in our bodies, then you must believe in reincarnation.

Here's the reasoning. If you believe your consciousness now is the same consciousness that existed in your head when you woke up this morning, despite the fact that the atoms that cause your consciousness are now arranged slightly differently and interacting differently, then there's not just one single arrangement of atoms that will cause the experience of "you" - there are many.

If you believe, as I do, that the consciousness that exists in your head now is the same consciousness that existed in your head as a child many years ago, and is the same consciousness as the one that will exist in your body when it is decades older, then there must be a whole set of different atomic arrangements which all generate the same unique conscious mind.

The universe today is actually fairly young. It's expected that it will continue for hundreds of trillions of years. It is a huge amount of time, and if atoms have come together in the right way to produce my consciousness now, after only 13 billion years, then it's reasonable to suppose that over the next many trillion years, the right arrangement of atoms will occur again at some future time long after this body is gone. And in fact, it's reasonable to suppose that this very same consciousness will be produced many many times over.

I do see one other option: consciousness is recreated anew every single moment, and we only have the impression of being a single continuous consciousness thanks to memory telling us what the previous consciousnesses that lived in our bodies experienced.

So which do you believe? You will live for ever, or you actually only live for a split second?


I'm not any kind of Buddhist or anything. In fact I'm vehemently opposed to religions of all kinds. I do believe science offers the best way to look at the world. Unlike religion, science starts from the reality that we do not know anything for sure.

Science questions everything and, from a starting point of pure ignorance, has gradually, cautiously and carefully, built up a coherent worldview that delivers real results - which is so much more than any religion can say.

However there are still very big and very important questions that have not been answered, and which we do not seem any closer to answering - to name but two, why am I me and not someone else, and what will happen to me when I die.

These are extremely important questions, and the honest approach right now is to say, "I don't know" and continue to live in ignorance.

By posing the question of this debate post, I'd like to challenge the seemingly widespread belief amongst atheists that once we die, we disappear as if we never existed. That might be a possibility, but it is far from the certainty that many atheists believe it to be.

I guess I overlooked the sentence in the sidebar that says, “A place for theists to come and debate atheists”. So please forgive me and treat this as a debate between atheists.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 9 points 1 month ago (4 children)

Well the premise of your post is inherently flawed because I do believe what you said but don't believe in reincarnation. Rendering your statement incorrect without having to engage further.

However, yes I did read it and it looks like a lot of the kind of metaphysical thinking that lots of reasonably scientifically literate atheists will eventually get themselves into. I've thought plenty about this kind of thing and the nature of consciousness etc as well ( as well as, you know, the entire field of philosophy has been doing for the last 4000 years or so)

You immediately run into all kinds of issues of definition in your post, what does it mean for "the consciousness in my head" to be "the same" in the morning as the afternoon?

I know the exact arrangement of physical matter that makes up my brain isn't constant. But there is a large logical leap to then say that therefore the fundamental aspects of consciousness therefore must also be different?

It's kind of a ship of Theseus style argument, you seem to be saying that any change at all to the underlying architecture of consciousness changes it fundamentally. But you don't explain why.

Our neurons are also constantly dying, being replaced etc. the brain itself will eventually be a brain of Theseus where all of the matter that once made your brain over time will be completely exchanged for new. You wouldn't argue (I assume) that this makes memory impossible, so why argue that changes at the atomic level must have deleterious effects to consciousness.

That's my story of slightly more grounded version.

The reality is my argument would be simple. My consciousness is not the same consciousness I "had" this morning, or a moment ago. Things have changed since then.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] [S] 1 point 1 month ago (3 children)

    It’s kind of a ship of Theseus style argument, you seem to be saying that any change at all to the underlying architecture of consciousness changes it fundamentally. But you don’t explain why.

    no I don't say that at all - actually that would be the alternative to reincarnation that I offer, where the consciousness is recreated anew every single moment. By the way, I don't *believe* in either an eternal reincarnating consciousness nor a fleeting consciousness that exists only for one single moment in time. I think the question however highlights that there remain very important puzzles that we are no closer to resolving than we were 500 years ago.

    This is actually what I believe - ignorance. We are ignorant, and know nothing for sure. We cannot be confident that our consciousness will disappear and be gone forever when we die. Many rational thinkers that I meet (and I'd like to consider myself also a rational thinker) are IMO unnecessarily confident that we will completely cease to exist when we die, and that confidence is really what I'm trying to challenge here.

    The reality is my argument would be simple. My consciousness is not the same consciousness I “had” this morning, or a moment ago. Things have changed since then.

    Alright, so you believe then that our unique conscious self exists only for a single moment then, and is gone never to return? That's fine to believe, but you should IMO accept that you don't know that, and in fact you have no real reason to believe that over the alternative of an eternal infinitely reincarnating consciousness.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    Nobody actually knows if that's what you're getting at. Yeah.

    That shouldn't lead you to believe in reincarnation, other than as one possibility we can't prove and have no evidence for

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] [S] 1 point 1 month ago (1 child)

    yes that's kind of what I'm saying, we don't know. It's why I find religion so .. ahh.. revolting. Religion claims to have answers that it absolutely does not have. Anyone who claims to be certain about what happens when we die is either lying, stupid, or mentally ill.

    I'm sorry, but this also goes for atheists. If you believe with high confidence that we cease to exist when we die then you simply haven't thought it through properly.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago

    Well, I mean I would have to disagree. We don't know what happens and we can't prove it anyway. When we die as far as I know it's quite literally just as likely that:

    A)absolutely nothing happens, my experience of consciousness stops, I return to a state just as I was before birth, i.e. there is no me to think so experience anything and if there were anything that was "me" anymore it is in effect meaningless

    B) I go to heaven and a middle eastern Arab tells me I've been a good boy and get to live in peace and joy for eternity in the clouds

    C) it's just an infinite roller coaster forever, but it rules and it never gets old.

    Just because I can't actually prove or argue any one of these is more or less plausible than another, assuming nothing out of the ordinary as far as my lived experience so far has taught me is actually the best I can do.

    Should my belief that nothing happens be particularly strong? Perhaps not. Should I hold that belief at all if I'm really a "good" scientist or a "good" atheist? Perhaps not.

    I don't really care though. Because engaging my brain in trying to puzzle out what is effectively complete nonsense with no evidence or reasoning is just a waste of time.

    You can consider my belief in nothing to be a belief in infinite roller coaster theory or anything else if you wish.

  • source
  • parent