Re: Athiests; a question.
In an effort to be helpful I'll point to areas of disagreement and then you can decide which one to work on first.
[ QUOTE ]
Since there is no distinction between the dead and the unborn it seems impossible to discount reincarnation.
[/ QUOTE ] There are lots of distinctions between the dead and the unborn. The 'incarnation claim' is like adding "and the red goose can mustky two wiglets".
[ QUOTE ]
This is because both the dead and unborn equally do not exist.
[/ QUOTE ] Not a meaningful statement "not existing" is like what happens as you enter a black hole, it impossible to say what is 'equal' beyond that. Naturally in a physical sense they do exist. [ QUOTE ]
When the unborn are concieved thay move from a nonexistient state to one of existence.
[/ QUOTE ] Meaninngless until several of the terms are clearly defined.
[ QUOTE ]
Since the dead and the unborn are equally non existient can not a dead person be reincarnated through the same process that crates the existence of the unborn?
[/ QUOTE ] see above and add "read something about neuroscience". [ QUOTE ]
Obviously few, if any, athiests believe in reincarnation, but is there any reason to doubt it's plausability?
[/ QUOTE ] You slip into the "prove it wrong' fallacy here. State your evidence for reincarnation and I'm sure you'll find takers on challenging it.
|