Can an atheist believe in reincarnation?

I've thought about this and had discussions with people at work.

It's a scientific principle that energy can be neither created nor destroyed, only change forms.

Since our bodies (and minds) give off energy what happens to that energy when we die? What form does it take? It can't just go out like a lightbulb.

A guy at work told me he didn't believe in reincarnation for one simple reason: There are billions of people in the world now and there never were before. His belief? All the energy becomes collected en masse and when a new body is born a part of it breaks off and inhabits the new body. It's his thought that all people are connected in this fashion even if they don't conciously know it.

I don't believe in a god or gods. I believe that we all chart our own destiny and that when we die our bodies cease to exist. But what about our minds?

and they believe in transmigration (not reincarnation) of the essential energy that christain call the soul from one body to another.

... I'd have to say, No problem.

Atheists believe when you die you die; Hindus and some pagans and new agers believe in reincarnation.

so why not?

in reincarnation.

I believe in a sentient universe. I believe that we are all little pieces of that universal consciousness. We are the universe made manifest trying to figure itself out. :-)

and the possiblity of the conservation of information as arguments
to justify my faith. If you assign it a proper noun and squint, you see God(ess).

But I think we are shaving down already nice points of difference.

is what makes arguing about religion fun. :-)

Seriously though, I just think it's a little megalomaniacal of us humans to give the consciousness of the universe a name and a human face.

It's really hard for me to put what I believe about the universe into words but I can state exactly why I believe in reincarnation. It's the only explanation I can come up with for the experience I've had with several of my closest friends. That feeling the first time I met them that I had known them forever. I firmly believe that we go around with some of the same souls over and over - either by choice or because we have karma to work out.

you were born. In other words, you simply leased time on Earth and returned to your home. You always existed, and thus, could not die. You may not have existed in the form as you are now with the same consciousness.

I have also heard a theory about reincarnation being in the form of people with multiple personalties, that is, these are true personalties who have found a singular host.

I cannot state with certainty that reincarnation means being returned in a recognizable form. It is a fascinating treatise.

If you believe in a solid self, some little nuggest that is you, then re-incarnation really doesn't seem possible. But if you think that maybe your "self" is more fluid, somewhat like "that section of the river between the first and second bends" then re-incarnation makes sense.

The contents and quality of that section of the river just move on.

If you believe in a fluid self, then "god" might also be fluid -- not just some unchanging entity, some white guy in robes.

So if you don't believe in a solid god, you might not believe in a solid self, and therefor re-incarntation is more believable.

Of course, what we believe might not have a whole lot to do with what actually happens, or appears to happen.

Rebirth does not require a belief in diety. Strictly, the dharma holds that dieties that may exist are subject to the laws of karma just like the rest of us and will eventually be 'reborn' is some form, too.

Your guy at work forgot the rest of the universe....

Just because you're atheist doesnt mean you reject the super-natural.

"Energy" is one of those words that a lot of people seem to use casually to mean anything they want it to mean.

The "scientific principle" you're refering to is at the basis of thermondynamics, and that is that the only way an isolated system can change the total sum of energy within it is to cease to be isolated. We are talking about physical energy, such as kinetic, thermal -- not about "mental" or one of the "soul" or something third.

The energy of your body is there because the dormant chemical energy of the food you eat is converted into thermal, kinetic, or whatever energy in your body. Once you cease eating, then there is no more energy input, and therefore no output.

That said, I don't think that this is an argument against incarnation per se -- all I'm saying is that your argument for incarnation doesn't do the job.

Well I think you are mixing up ideas of spiritual energy and concepts about the energy we encounter in the empirical universe. Consciousness is often conflated with psychic energy, whatever that is I don't know. But with reference to empirical energy I think its safe to say it's headed toward heat.

Of, course there are also reservoirs of "chemical" energy in the "bio-stuff" of which the body is made, but these are by and large consumed during post-mortem decomposition, much of this is also lost as heat.

I'll show you a problem with mixing the meaning of words as was subtly done with energy...why doesn't this post mortem "energy" diffuse from areas of higher concentration to areas of lower concentration? How does the "energy" become collected (flowing from lower to higher concentrations). Concentrating things in the empirical world generally requires some form of work...to reverse the natural tendency of entropy. So (here is the word trick employing the use of mixing meanings)doesn't "work" imply a "worker," and if that "worker" is playing with the stuff of our souls, well, isn't that godlike?

Many-world theories is more or less regarded as "plausible although not provable for a long time, if ever" in theoretical Physics. Essentially, the Universe is always branching indefinitely due to quantum uncertainty. For instance, there is a universe where a speck of dust hit Lee Oswald's eye just before he was going to shoot JFK. And another universe in which THAT guy did not touch THAT ball in THAT baseball game. And another one in which you were not born because your dad bumped into a stranger in a slightly diffenet way, hence shuffling the sperm cells in his left nut in a slightly different way... and so on.

Essentially, there is no such thing as "existing" or "not existing", just "plausible" and "implausible". Everything that has other than zero probability, in a way, happens. Other way of looking at this is that a closed sequence of events (aka a Univere history) is nothing more than a logical construct, just like a chess game or a right rectangle with integer sides. Does the 3-4-5 triangle "exist"? Are chess games that were never played less "existant" than the recent one Kasparov and the computer tied?

Now imagine some fellow is hit by lightning, goes into a coma, survives, but his memories become all scrambled. He thinks it's 2040. He thinks England never won a soccer World Cup. He recalls details of his upbringing, but all wrong. Mom was tall, not short. I lived at 47 XYZ st., not 407. And this fellow is not my cousin, he's my brother!!!

OK, now you're ready to commit me to the loony bin. Remember, it's just an hypotesis.

On edit: some typos.

I would assume most atheists would not but who knows...:shrug:

Again this hinges on the conflation of meanings in this case the confusion of "energy" with vitality.

Light from a light buld is a result of a flowing electric current. When the current stops, so does the glow of the light buld.

Similarly, vitality of a human function is like the glow of the lightbulb. So long as the organizational integrity and internal conditions allow biochemical processes to continue a human is alive. When physiological activity of an individual ceases, and its organizational integrity decays, the individual is no longer alive. Admittedly, this defines vitality as a mainfestation of mechanism rather than spirit.

As much as the "mind" (that thing which provides our consciousness an awareness of living personhood) is a manifestation of physiological processes, it also can analogously be considered to "wink out" at death like a light bulb.

Here's exactly how reincarnation works:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=105&topic_id=435065#438296

to believe in reincarnation? The two beliefs have nothing whatever to do with one another - well, except for the total lack of evidence for either.

I'd LIKE to believe in reincarnation, but I'm terminally skeptical of anything for which I can't see empirical proofs. I'm just made that way.

I don't, but the word "atheist" only refers to belief in gods, not belief in other supernatural stuff.

I was going to deconstruct your misuse of the word "energy" but someone else already did it.

I see no reason to think there is anything to human consciousness that transcends the biochemical, so I have no belief in reincarnation.

While energy cannot be destroyed it can be thrown into disarray. Our consciousness arises from the order and patters made by our brain. Stop the brain and you stop the order. Stop the order and the consciousness ends.

Atheists tend not to worry about ones soul being sneezed out.