# Theory of reincarnation - credible or not and why? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 19, 2006, 8:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theory-of-reincarnation-credible-or-not-and-why/340712 "2006-01-19T20:43:45Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![wisernow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/13edae/32.png) [@wisernow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wisernow)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2006, 11:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theory-of-reincarnation-credible-or-not-and-why/340712/41 "2006-01-21T23:36:38Z")
> [@Captain](#): > > You just need to realize, though, that those are assumptions you’re making, and that someone who doesn’t share those assumptions might not be convinced by your argument. The realm of metaphysics being what it is, assumptions are the only fillers that can be used to fill the gaps which riddle it. I am an atheist myself and the only purpose of the op is that if some day I were to decide otherwise, I would want to adopt the most plausible philosophy. To that end, while it still has unanswered questions and is not anywhere near perfect, amongst those available, the reincarnation theory is the least wild. > [@Captain](#): > > If a belief in karma is enough to prevent someone from committing any bad deeds, then it would follow that neither Hindus or Buddhists, both of whom believe in the doctrine of “karma” would ever do anything wrong or bad. But we know that that’s not true…that both Hindus and Buddhists do bad deeds. A theory or a faith is not enough to prevent its adherents from committing bad deeds. Merely being a Hindu, Buddhist or whatever does not nevessarily imply a sincere belief in the respective philsophy. This is one of the reaosn why I feel good being an atheist. Better not to believe in a God and a religion than to claim belief in one and then commit acts that are wong. ---
**Author:** ![wisernow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/13edae/32.png) [@wisernow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wisernow)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2006, 12:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theory-of-reincarnation-credible-or-not-and-why/340712/42 "2006-01-22T00:50:37Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Do bacteria have souls? Virii? Prions? Yes. As per the karmic theory each and evry living being has a a soul. The theory says that it is only after being born 800,000 times does one achieve the life form of a human. An algebraic summation of souls would therefore need to include all life forms less those that have managed to get out of the cycle of birth and death. > [@Voyager](#): > > Mangetout > …in exactly what sense is it ‘me’ that’s being transferred from one place to another? As per Hindu philosophy, sould lends conciousness to the body but is not conciousness itself. The ‘me’ that you talk about comprises your physical body and mind and its contents including thoughts, memories and impressions. When the soul transmigrates it leaves everything that it did not come with. ---
**Author:** ![CurtC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ce73a5/32.png) [@CurtC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CurtC)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2006, 4:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theory-of-reincarnation-credible-or-not-and-why/340712/43 "2006-01-23T04:12:59Z")
> [@Tevildo](#): > > Well, many of our atheist and materialist friends deny the existence of _mind_, let alone the _soul_ I’m an atheist materialist, and I’m wondering what definition of “mind” might someone be using to deny its existence. > [@](#): > > The theory says that it is only after being born 800,000 times does one achieve the life form of a human. What’s after human? I won’t even attempt to address the OP, since it was aimed at answering an objection from atheists, and my answers probably aren’t welcome. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2006, 6:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theory-of-reincarnation-credible-or-not-and-why/340712/44 "2006-01-23T06:43:42Z")
> [@wisernow](#): > > Yes. As per the karmic theory each and evry living being has a a soul. Doesn’t that mean souls are basically trivial ? ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2006, 8:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theory-of-reincarnation-credible-or-not-and-why/340712/45 "2006-01-23T08:41:00Z")
> [@wisernow](#): > > As per Hindu philosophy, sould lends conciousness to the body but is not conciousness itself. The ‘me’ that you talk about comprises your physical body and mind and its contents including thoughts, memories and impressions. When the soul transmigrates it leaves everything that it did not come with. My response to that would then be ‘so what if it _is_ true?’ I don’t think _anyone_ would dispute the fact that non-conscious components of ourselves were previously parts of other living things and will comprise parts of other living things after we die, but really, how is there any concept of discrete ‘souls’ if those souls don’t embody any attributes of the person to whom they belong? So you’d have people being punished or rewarded (karmically) because of something that happened _to someone else_. There’s no inherent sense of justice or balance in that. If you really are an atheist and you’re looking for the most plausible alternative (and I’ll admit right now that I’m having a hard time getting my head around the meaning of this stance\*), surely it would make more sense to accept something like: -Our physical bodies are composed of an arbitrary subset of the available pool of matter in the universe. -Our souls are composed of an arbitrary spoonful of the collective ‘lifeforce’ available in the universe. -When we die, the matter goes up for grabs, the ‘lifeforce’ goes back into the pool (in fact you could probably argue that this exchange carries on in part even while we live) -We experience different qualities of event in our lives because _shit happens_ and the only thing constraining this is _other shit happening_. \*I mean, really, what you’re asking is “If I wanted to add baseless assumptions to my worldview, which of them might not be baseless?” - your quest contains a contradiction at its very root. ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2006, 10:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theory-of-reincarnation-credible-or-not-and-why/340712/46 "2006-01-23T10:23:58Z")
> [@wisernow](#): > > Yes. As per the karmic theory each and evry living being [including prions!] has a a soul. Prions and proteins are really just molecules: arrangements of carbon, oxygen, hydrogen and nitrogen atoms. To say that one arrangement of suh atoms has no soul but another _does_ is surely a _reductio ad absurdans_ of reincarnation as a whole? > [@](#): > > The theory says that it is only after being born 800,000 times does one achieve the life form of a human. But this just doesn’t add up. Even with an average lifespan of a _year_ (and only a tiny _tiny_ fraction of a percent of all living things in those 5 billion years lives this long, or longer) this 800,000 years accounts for less than 0.02% of the total time life existed without humans. Even then, every human that ever lived represents such a tiny precentage of every\*thing[/]i that ever lived that the probability of a soul ever occupying one is vanishingly small. And just how can a simple organism be _good or bad_, exactly?! ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2006, 12:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theory-of-reincarnation-credible-or-not-and-why/340712/47 "2006-01-23T12:54:33Z")
> [@Wesley Clark](#): > > The real question was what value is reincarnation if 75% of people don’t live long enough to actually become cognitively competent enough to do good or bad? Even if you feel that the soul doesn’t enter the body until birth historically only about 50% of children made it to the age of 6. There isn’t much karma to work out that way. And? The nature of life and is cyclical. The time frames you suggest are a mere blink. The death of young children, while tragic, is a part of that cycle. They might not be working out much Karam but parents were. Part of the goal is to release our clinging on a fleeting physical world and to turn our attention toward the spiritual. > [@](#): > > It still puts a damper on reincarnation. If over the course of the next 200 years there end up being an extra 30 billion people born (which is feasable) then that means that almost half of all humans that have ever lived live between now and then. So reincarnation doesn’t make sense mathematically unless those people all lived only one or two lives. There isn’t much reincarnating going on. If you go for 1000 years and assume human population increases even higher than 95%+ of all humans who ever live on the planet between the evolution of homo sapiens and the year 3000 will have lived between now and 3000. It changes our perception of where we might be in the wheel. That’s all. > [@](#): > > But sadly even those are not universally accepted. I agree that our actions have consequences on a larger scale in a way that we don’t understand (meaning there is some kind of ripple effect) but not everyone really feels that fear is negative. Religion has instilled fear for years. People just don’t know what constitutes good or evil as it is always changing. Ask Bin Ladin about the moral consequences of fear and how it relates him to God or Good and evil. I realize our perception of good and evil changes. I maintain that ultimatly there is a constant which is the goal. “perfect love has no fear” Organized religion useing fear hardly eliminates it as a negative. It’s been a while since I’ve read it but in some eastern religions the goal so much to consitantly choose the positive but to grow beyond this world of duality to a point where duality doesn’t exist. > [@](#): > > This is possible, but it is pretty impotent as dictators amass endless karma that they could never work out. There are a handful of people who do a good deal of the evil in human history. According to RJ Rummel there were 180 million people murdered by their governments in the 20th century. 120 million of them were in the USSR, Nazi territory or Communist China. Stalin alone (because the deaths ended when he died) was responsible for most of those deaths, as were a handful of bureaucrats and figureheads in Germany and China. Never vs eternity. I don’t know. Dictators ordered certain things. Others chose to obey or not. Others chose to resist or not. All ripples. In the Bible Jesus tells us that if we hate we are guily of murder. We can’t escape the wheel simply by being too afriad to act on our hatred. That changes the Karmic perspective of a whole lot a people. Profound prejudice against a race could make someone have as much Karmic debt as any dictator. Someone who goes through like full of bitterness and spite, the same. > [@](#): > > So even if karma is real most people are not negative on any meaningful scale. On a small scale, yes. But alot of the evil that occurs in human life is due to a handful of politicans. So Karma is impotent as someone who murders 50 million people and causes endless suffering for those people will amass endless karma but those 50 million will only have to deal with things like stealing eggs or yelling at a family member. You misunderstand . The dictator creates a karmic debt by placing personal power and control above all. Someone may go through life creating a similar Karmic debt without killing anyone. The Karmic difference between passionate anger hatred, and actually killing is not as different as we in the physical perceive it. > [@](#): > > It is more because we are more scientific, more literate. The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak more or less. Humans don’t want to suffer and they don’t want other humans or other life forms to suffer but only now do we actually have the tools to avoid suffering. We didn’t have the agricultural technology to fight famine that we have now. How did science abolish slavery? Give woman the right to vote? Struggle for civil rights? Stand up for the oppressed? Risk a life to defend the oppressed in foreign countries? Science has relieved and increased suffereing. People are making the choices? > [@](#): > > We didn’t have the communications tools we have now or the transportation tools or the medicine. If humans are given science by and large they will use it to help themselves and others. But we didn’t have it back then. Obviously scientific advances can be used for good or bad. It is our spiritual and moral growth that results in a trend toward positive choices. > [@](#): > > If you have a choice between creating a fire that can burn people and a heat lamp that cannot burn people and you are aware that you could get all the benefits of fire without the suffering but create one anyway then no you are not benevolent. You are either impotent, inept, amoral or evil. If God had the option of creating a world without suffering but still created it he/she is not benevolent. The ends do not justify the means. This has been hashed over before. How do we have free will without something to choose? I think your point is interesting but is merely one parameter to consider. One concept that appeals to me is the idea that God did not create suffereing but we did by choosing to be seperate from God. The story of Adam and Eve suggests this. > [@](#): > > Human rights are also going up globally. There is more money, more food and less cruelty now than there was 200 years ago. It will only get better. It won’t be due to karma it will be due to the scientific method and humans taking control of their destinies. People taking control of their destinies is what Karma is all about. They are not in conflict. What we also see in present world are mega cooperations influencing goverments to destroy the balance of nature on a scale we never could before {one of the benifits of science no doubt} and willing to start wars and see thousands killed to promote profit. You seem confident that people will choose to correct this problem before it goes to far. Possibly. It it also possible that global warming will create weather cycles that kill millions before we finally begin to turn things around. That and other unpleasent options are stilll available for mankind to choose. In our comfortable homes we can easily feel that “all will be well” and lulled into a sense of security. Sometimes reality knocks down the illusion and we have to deal with moral choices we’ve been avoiding. 9/11 is a good example. Sorry I haven’t responded sooner. I was busy in that other thread. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2006, 12:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theory-of-reincarnation-credible-or-not-and-why/340712/48 "2006-01-23T12:58:14Z")
> [@Trust](#): > > It’s a non-issue. If it’s true, then it’s true and you get some more shots at life. If it’s not true, then you just wasted away your single chance at life and allowed some people to rationalize mistreating others. Friend **Trust** you misunderstand reincarnation and Karma. The goal is still do do our best to love one another and strive to be a better person. One lifetime or many. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2006, 3:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theory-of-reincarnation-credible-or-not-and-why/340712/49 "2006-01-23T15:46:36Z")
> [@Der Trihs](#): > > Doesn’t that mean souls are basically trivial ? That’s the beauty of it; it doesn’t _do_ anything. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2006, 4:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theory-of-reincarnation-credible-or-not-and-why/340712/50 "2006-01-23T16:50:28Z")
> [@Mangetout](#): > > That’s the beauty of it; it doesn’t _do_ anything. What the hell is that from? It sounds really familiar but I can’t place it. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2006, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theory-of-reincarnation-credible-or-not-and-why/340712/51 "2006-01-23T17:20:22Z")
> [@wisernow](#): > > Yes. As per the karmic theory each and evry living being has a a soul. The theory says that it is only after being born 800,000 times does one achieve the life form of a human. > > An algebraic summation of souls would therefore need to include all life forms less those that have managed to get out of the cycle of birth and death. When bacteria reproduce by division, which half gets the soul? And, are viruses (but virii is such a cool word 🙂 ) and prions actually alive? Viruses are mostly just DNA. Do mitochondria, which in a sense are cells living in our cells, have individual souls? Do white blood cells? You see, there are all sorts of problems with this. Then we have to wonder about how souls get generated. Sure, there are plenty of bacterial souls for humans, but a billion years ago there were fewer life forms than now. Was there a stock of souls waiting around? If so, how do you determine if new life gets a reused sould or a new one? At 50,000 feet reincarnation looks plausible, but as you dive down, it starts becoming clearly absurd. ---
**Author:** ![wisernow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/13edae/32.png) [@wisernow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wisernow)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2006, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theory-of-reincarnation-credible-or-not-and-why/340712/52 "2006-01-23T17:33:41Z")
> [@CurtC](#): > > What’s after human? Moksha, that liberation from the cycle of life and being one with Brahman, the ultimate Truth. > [@Der Trihs](#): > > Doesn’t that mean souls are basically trivial? How does the concept that every living being has a soul make it trivial? > [@Mangetout](#): > > I don’t think anyone would dispute the fact that non-conscious components of ourselves were previously parts of other living things and will comprise parts of other living things after we die,… I don’t think I quite understand. The non-conscious components get destroyed after death. How were they or will be parts of “living” things? > [@Mangetout](#): > > So you’d have people being punished or rewarded (karmically) because of something that happened to someone else. There’s no inherent sense of justice or balance in that. No. People get rewarded or punished depending on what **they** did to others. > [@Mangetout](#): > > -Our physical bodies are composed of an arbitrary subset of the available pool of matter in the universe. > -Our souls are composed of an arbitrary spoonful of the collective ‘lifeforce’ available in the universe. To accept arbitrariness in anything is to stop looking for explanations and give up logic. Why assume something is arbitrary without trying to figure out a suitable explanation? > [@Mangetout](#): > > -We experience different qualities of event in our lives because shit happens and the only thing constraining this is other shit happening. “Shit happens” is another dysphemism for arbitrariness. > [@SentientMeat](#): > > Prions and proteins are really just molecules: arrangements of carbon, oxygen, hydrogen and nitrogen atoms. To say that one arrangement of suh atoms has no soul but another does is surely a reductio ad absurdans of reincarnation as a whole? I am sorry I did not know the meaning of “prions” and didn’t look it up before posting. If prions are not living beings then of course the concept of soul or reincarnation > [@SentientMeat](#): > > And just how can a simple organism be \*good or bad, exactly?! The concept of karma applies only to the last phase in the chain, that is when the soul enters the human body. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2006, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theory-of-reincarnation-credible-or-not-and-why/340712/53 "2006-01-23T17:47:17Z")
> [@wisernow](#): > > I am sorry I did not know the meaning of “prions” and didn’t look it up before posting. If prions are not living beings then of course the concept of soul or reincarnation That’s why I mentioned them. The ancients knew what is living and what isn’t. We’re not that smart. Viruses are somewhat more alive than prions, but less than cells. The problem is with assuming the universe likes to put things into little boxes (like living and non-living) that we humans do. > [@](#): > > The concept of karma applies only to the last phase in the chain, that is when the soul enters the human body. Then what gets a bacteria soul promoted (or demoted) into a human soul? Is there some promotion ladder? That’s another problem, since why is complexity more advanced than simplicity? Or do really good bacteria (or snakes, or trapdoor spiders) get promoted. What about animals which are cruel, by human standards, to each other, but which are only doing the behaviors which have evolved to make them most successful? ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2006, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theory-of-reincarnation-credible-or-not-and-why/340712/54 "2006-01-23T20:53:57Z")
> [@wisernow](#): > > How does the concept that every living being has a soul make it trivial? Because most living things are trivial. There’s nothing grand about a virus or slime mold. > [@wisernow](#): > > I don’t think I quite understand. The non-conscious components get destroyed after death. How were they or will be parts of “living” things? They get eaten. > [@wisernow](#): > > No. People get rewarded or punished depending on what **they** did to others. Can you prove it ? > [@wisernow](#): > > To accept arbitrariness in anything is to stop looking for explanations and give up logic. Why assume something is arbitrary without trying to figure out a suitable explanation? Sometimes, there is no reason for something; just random chance. The universe is full of randomness. ---
**Author:** ![jawdirk](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/df705f/32.png) [@jawdirk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jawdirk)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2006, 10:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theory-of-reincarnation-credible-or-not-and-why/340712/55 "2006-01-23T22:23:41Z")
Pointing out the gray area between living and non-living doesn’t show that reincarnation isn’t plausible, it just shows that those who believe in reincarnation should adapt their beliefs to science. All of these arguments can be answered by making the role of a soul more flexible. Perhaps some souls inhabit people, some inhabit viruses, and some inhabit electrons. Perhaps some souls inhabit a few bacteria, or a colony of bacteria, or an entire ant colony. Perhaps some viruses don’t have souls, and others do. Perhaps souls prefer to inhabit a form with more intricacy and cohesion so that their choices have more meaning. Karma is just the economy of which souls are allowed to inhabit which vessels. It’s like a real-estate market. It’s quite likely that land in Montana will go unoccupied, but quite unlikely that a spacious flat in Tokyo will go unoccupied. Sometimes people rent two apartments at once, and sometimes they live on the street or go camping. But the fact that some rock formations can be used as shelters and there is no clear boundary between a home and the wilderness doesn’t mean that the whole idea of real-estate is absurd. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2006, 10:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theory-of-reincarnation-credible-or-not-and-why/340712/56 "2006-01-23T22:52:27Z")
What is a “soul?” What is is physically made of? Where is it in the body? Does it contain memeories or consciousness? If so how are those things stored? ---
**Author:** ![jawdirk](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/df705f/32.png) [@jawdirk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jawdirk)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2006, 11:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theory-of-reincarnation-credible-or-not-and-why/340712/57 "2006-01-23T23:14:36Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Then what gets a bacteria soul promoted (or demoted) into a human soul? Is there some promotion ladder? That’s another problem, since why is complexity more advanced than simplicity? Or do really good bacteria (or snakes, or trapdoor spiders) get promoted. What about animals which are cruel, by human standards, to each other, but which are only doing the behaviors which have evolved to make them most successful? I think there is, in effect. Just like my real-estate analogy above, souls that use their vessel to its potential prosper, while those that squander the potential of a vessel will be forced by the economy of Karma into a less complicated vessel. Those that live as humans but act like hyenas might do better in the body of a hyena in their next life. Why inhabit a human being with the potential for ethical contemplation, or any number of things, if your only desire is to pilfer food and terrorize competitors? Humans create so much more of a burden on the biosphere than hyenas, that they ought to be devoted to higher Karmic achievement. So as a human, there are a host of subtle ethical considerations to improve one’s Karma, but for a hyena, maybe all you have to do is be the best hyena you can be. ---
**Author:** ![jawdirk](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/df705f/32.png) [@jawdirk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jawdirk)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2006, 11:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theory-of-reincarnation-credible-or-not-and-why/340712/58 "2006-01-23T23:21:02Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > What is a “soul?” What is is physically made of? Where is it in the body? Does it contain memeories or consciousness? If so how are those things stored? Perhaps a soul is not physical, but affects the physical. Perhaps it does have memory, but not the same memory as a person, a memory that only effects most people subconsciously. Surely you make decisions and judgements all the time without any knowledge of what caused you to choose that way. Maybe your soul is taking an active part in those decisions. There are many mechanisms we have no knowledge of. Maybe a soul exists in the chaotic arrangement of neurons that seems arbitrary, but has been subtely crafted since your conception? Perhaps the only purpose of the brain is to allow the soul to control the human, by magnifying the effect of small differences. Chaos: sensitive dependence on initial conditions, is the perfect vehicle for control of the large by the indetectably small. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2006, 11:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theory-of-reincarnation-credible-or-not-and-why/340712/59 "2006-01-23T23:34:10Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > What the hell is that from? It sounds really familiar but I can’t place it. The weird thing is that everybody thinks that they’ve heard it someplace, usually in a movie, but so far, nobody knows for sure where it came from, and searches have been quite extensive. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2006, 11:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theory-of-reincarnation-credible-or-not-and-why/340712/60 "2006-01-23T23:42:59Z")
> [@wisernow](#): > > I don’t think I quite understand. The non-conscious components get destroyed after death. How were they or will be parts of “living” things? The non-coscious components of living things are called ‘atoms’ - they are not destroyed at all; many of your atoms were once parts of other organisms and when you’re done with them, many will be re-used in the future by other organisms. So far, you’ve not described any _personal_ property of the past self that is carried forward in any way more meaningful than those _personal_ properties of the past self that are carried forward by the simple chemicals of which our bodies are composed; to wit: none. > [@](#): > > No. People get rewarded or punished depending on what **they** did to others. Except every trace of the person’s personality - the very thing that makes them _them_ - the essence of their unique individuality, is not preserved, so the person being karmically punished or rewarded is only connected(allegedly) to their past ‘self’ by a bland, blank, nonpersonal entity that happened to belong to another person with another personality. If the personal properties of the individual do not adhere to the soul when the person dies, then it isn’t the same person being reborn, by definition. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theory-of-reincarnation-credible-or-not-and-why/340712.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theory-of-reincarnation-credible-or-not-and-why/340712.md?page=4)