Athiests; a question.

[ QUOTE ]
atheists do not believe in a soul or reincarnation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Buddhists are atheists, and major branches of Buddhism believe in reincarnation. Souls, likewise, can exist without God existing.

Atheists don't believe that God exists. Period.

[bocablkr]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
atheists do not believe in a soul or reincarnation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Buddhists are atheists, and major branches of Buddhism believe in reincarnation. Souls, likewise, can exist without God existing.

Atheists don't believe that God exists. Period.

[/ QUOTE ]

Kip, disagree. See the below item taken from http://atheism.about.com/b/a/208011.htm

Discussion: Atheists and Souls
A forum member writes: There is nothing in atheism that excludes a belief in souls and the like. An atheist can believe in vampires, werewolves, magic, ghosts and faeries all they want and still be an atheist so long as they do not believe in a god or gods. After all, many Buddists believe in reincarnation, which would by necessity require the existence of a soul, and are atheists also.

It's certainly true that atheism is compatible with belief in souls or an afterlife — atheism only excludes belief in gods. At the same time, though, belief in souls or an afterlife is more often associated with theism than not. If you are an atheist who believes in souls or an afterlife, what is the context for your beliefs and why do you hold them ?

[imported_luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
If you are an atheist who believes in souls or an afterlife, what is the context for your beliefs and why do you hold them ?

[/ QUOTE ] Seems an obvious question. I don't see what it has to do with the statement "Atheists can believe in souls". If I run into one that does, the 'why' question may arise. Unless he blames it on "well, god ... " then he is going to be my living specimen of an atheist that believes in souls. Where is the conflict?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
atheists do not believe in a soul or reincarnation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Buddhists are atheists, and major branches of Buddhism believe in reincarnation. Souls, likewise, can exist without God existing.

Atheists don't believe that God exists. Period.

[/ QUOTE ]

Kip, disagree. See the below item taken from http://atheism.about.com/b/a/208011.htm

Discussion: Atheists and Souls
A forum member writes: There is nothing in atheism that excludes a belief in souls and the like. An atheist can believe in vampires, werewolves, magic, ghosts and faeries all they want and still be an atheist so long as they do not believe in a god or gods. After all, many Buddists believe in reincarnation, which would by necessity require the existence of a soul, and are atheists also.

It's certainly true that atheism is compatible with belief in souls or an afterlife — atheism only excludes belief in gods. At the same time, though, belief in souls or an afterlife is more often associated with theism than not. If you are an atheist who believes in souls or an afterlife, what is the context for your beliefs and why do you hold them ?

[/ QUOTE ]

I fail to see how your quoted text does anything but confirm what I previously stated.

The question you bolded, could be rephrased: "why are some atheists irrational"? That doesn't mean they aren't atheists... it just means that believing in souls and reincarnation is irrational.

[bocablkr]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
atheists do not believe in a soul or reincarnation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Buddhists are atheists, and major branches of Buddhism believe in reincarnation. Souls, likewise, can exist without God existing.

Atheists don't believe that God exists. Period.

[/ QUOTE ]

Kip, disagree. See the below item taken from http://atheism.about.com/b/a/208011.htm

Discussion: Atheists and Souls
A forum member writes: There is nothing in atheism that excludes a belief in souls and the like. An atheist can believe in vampires, werewolves, magic, ghosts and faeries all they want and still be an atheist so long as they do not believe in a god or gods. After all, many Buddists believe in reincarnation, which would by necessity require the existence of a soul, and are atheists also.

It's certainly true that atheism is compatible with belief in souls or an afterlife — atheism only excludes belief in gods. At the same time, though, belief in souls or an afterlife is more often associated with theism than not. If you are an atheist who believes in souls or an afterlife, what is the context for your beliefs and why do you hold them ?

[/ QUOTE ]

I fail to see how your quoted text does anything but confirm what I previously stated.

The question you bolded, could be rephrased: "why are some atheists irrational"? That doesn't mean they aren't atheists... it just means that believing in souls and reincarnation is irrational.

[/ QUOTE ]

Most atheists I know are extremely rational. And in my personal opinion belief in a soul if you are an atheist is IRRATIONAL. After reading more in the above mentioned site, I must admit there were some people who claimed to be atheists as well as believing in a soul. Thus the reason for the poll question. I just have never met any - and I have met many, many atheists. Almost everyone in my family and most of my friends I associate with are atheists.

I never really considered Buddists true atheists because of the spiritual aspect of their beliefs - but I am no authority.

[theweatherman]

maybe im explaining this poorly so I'll try to seperate the points a little.

Since there is no distinction between the dead and the unborn it seems impossible to discount reincarnation.

This is because both the dead and unborn equally do not exist. When the unborn are concieved thay move from a nonexistient state to one of existence.

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?

Obviously few, if any, athiests believe in reincarnation, but is there any reason to doubt it's plausability?

[TomCollins]

[ QUOTE ]
maybe im explaining this poorly so I'll try to seperate the points a little.

Since there is no distinction between the dead and the unborn it seems impossible to discount reincarnation.

This is because both the dead and unborn equally do not exist. When the unborn are concieved thay move from a nonexistient state to one of existence.

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?

Obviously few, if any, athiests believe in reincarnation, but is there any reason to doubt it's plausability?

[/ QUOTE ]

If something ceases to exist, it cannot come back into being.

[theweatherman]

[ QUOTE ]
If something ceases to exist, it cannot come back into being.


[/ QUOTE ]

That doesnt seem true, as it has been said above, before conception no one existed. The act ofconception moves you from a state of nonexistence to one of existence.

It seemingly should make no difference if that person had existed before or not, since they would still be equally non existent as a dead person, or an unborn person.

[imported_luckyme]

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.

[Lestat]

A bubble doesn't exist, then it exists for a brief time, then it doesn't exist. Are you saying this bubble can realize life again by coming into existence as a tree or an alligator?

I still don't see why or how you are linking non-existence with reincarnation. Many things don't exist. You're correct that an unborn child, a dead man, and a flying brick wall that eats ogres and shits elephants all don't exist equally. But what's your point? None of these things are any more likely to reincarnate from a non-existent state.