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
[–] 1 point 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (3 children)

If we could put boundaries on how many molecules there are needed to support a human mind that would be helpful in answering this question. They can't just be any molecules ether they need to be human DNA, RNA and proteins. That implies an exact evolutionary history full of many twists and turns that link to the geology and cosmic history of the Earth and all it's many previous lifeforms. This in turn reflects the history of our galaxy. So to paraphrase Carl Sagan to remake a particular consciousness you must first make a new universe and a new Earth and mammals and so on, zeroing in on your target. Humans in the future won't be exactly like us. In fact I'd hope they would be just a little saner but extinction is also quite possible. Also other species on similar planets might resemble us in many ways yet have taken a vastly different path to intelligence. We are not digital with a limited instruction set running on organic computers or your idea might be true. We are entirely analog. Our thoughts and sense of self taken as a whole are the products of a near infinite web of random events and decisions that will never reoccur. That is if parallel universes are excluded but that's a whole other discussion.

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

    I was thinking of Carl Sagan with this question. I have heard people say that he was open to the idea of reincarnation. I'd love for someone to correct me, but I believe what actually happened is that he said he did not believe there was evidence for reincarnation, but that he thought that the studies into children apparently having memories from a previous life were done with proper scientific methods and deserved to be explored further.

    I believe it might also be confused with his narration in Cosmos where he talks about atoms being recycled, and about religions believing in reincarnation. I don't think he linked the two the way OP did.

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

    I don’t think he linked the two the way OP did

    err no I didn't. I didn't link anything or even mention religion in the body of my post, it was supposed to be taken from a purely objective and scientific viewpoint. I didn't even say what my view was, everyone seemed to assume that I hold a belief in reincarnation. I never said that at all, I said, "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".

    I didn't say what my viewpoint was. I was in fact addressing those people who do think the question of consciousness is pretty much settled science.

    My whole point is that it is not settled. We have not really got any closer to answering those crucial questions of existence.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment