• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

No such thing as Reincarnation

What is the strong proof that Re-incarnation does not exist. if u can prove.

There is strong proof in psychology that Re-incarnation exists.
 
Last edited:

SheikhHorusFromTheSky

Active Member
What is the strong proof that Re-incarnation does not exist. if u can prove.

There is strong proof in psychology that Re-incarnation exists.

Did you look at the links? It explains of a thing called false memory, which does exist. The only person who tried to prove reincarnation was Ian Stevenson, who did not do it quite successfully.
 

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
If reincarnation does exist, it sure isn't as self-evident as, say, language acquisition.

Maybe it is simply rare, or as subtle that its very existence may be arguable.

Most of the events presented as evidence for the existence of reincarnation are quite unusual even if taken at face value. Why would it be so if reincarnation were common?

Are we to believe that only one in thousands of people reincarnates, or does so in a way that leaves something that might be argued as evidence? If so, why even interpret it as reincarnation instead of something less contrived such as perhaps ESP?
 

SheikhHorusFromTheSky

Active Member
If reincarnation does exist, it sure isn't as self-evident as, say, language acquisition.

Maybe it is simply rare, or as subtle that its very existence may be arguable.

Most of the events presented as evidence for the existence of reincarnation are quite unusual even if taken at face value. Why would it be so if reincarnation were common?

Are we to believe that only one in thousands of people reincarnates, or does so in a way that leaves something that might be argued as evidence? If so, why even interpret it as reincarnation instead of something less contrived such as perhaps ESP?

For me, I believe in a metaphorical reincarnation, where you go through many phases in just one lifetime.
 
SheikhHorusFromTheSky You should understand what u r trying to do , you Already have a Judgement then u r collecting for Evidence. first have the space for enquiry to happen.
 

Taahir

Member
How exactly would we scientifically be able to prove or disprove reincarnation in any way? Reincarnation seems like something that is beyond any understanding of worldly science.
 

Kalidas

Well-Known Member
Well my two cents is this: Heaven is FAR less believable then reincarnation. Lets say we all do have souls and they all go places when we die. Those that believe in Heaven or Hell say the souls go to one of those places despite the facts that no such places can be seen in the known universe. While reincarnationists say they are reborn into other living beings, things we CAN prove and KNOW exist.
 

George-ananda

Advaita Vedanta, Theosophy, Spiritualism
Premium Member
The only person who tried to prove reincarnation was Ian Stevenson, who did not do it quite successfully.

Correction, Dr. Stevenson never said he was trying to 'prove' reincarnation. He was presenting evidence 'suggestive' of reincarnation. He was quite successful at that.

His evidence combined with evidence and teachings from other sources creates a strong case for reincarnation. A belief I strongly hold.

I didn't bother to read your links just like you didn't read the pro-reincarnation sources another poster mentioned. Anything with the title 'Reincarnation Debunked' is obviously dripping with one-sided emotional motivation. I'd be more inclined to read a post titled 'reincarnation intelligently considered' by someone who rejects reincarnation.
 
Last edited:

George-ananda

Advaita Vedanta, Theosophy, Spiritualism
Premium Member
Well my two cents is this: Heaven is FAR less believable then reincarnation.

IMO. Well heaven and reincarnation both exists. Heaven is the between life state (also called the astral plane and is still a temporary state).

Lets say we all do have souls and they all go places when we die. Those that believe in Heaven or Hell say the souls go to one of those places despite the facts that no such places can be seen in the known universe. While reincarnationists say they are reborn into other living beings, things we CAN prove and KNOW exist.

The problem with your argument there is 'what happens to souls between lifetimes?'. They are not in the known universe.
 

Kalidas

Well-Known Member
IMO. Well heaven and reincarnation both exists. Heaven is the between life state (also called the astral plane and is still a temporary state).



The problem with your argument there is 'what happens to souls between lifetimes?'. They are not in the known universe.

I never said they just instantly reincarnated, and honestly ?I do not know. I am speaking of the "eternal heaven". You are free to believe in heaven or hell that's fine. I honestly don't know if I do. my argument was only to bring up this one fact. It is easy to prove livings things exist it is VERY hard to prove heaven or hell exist. This if one believes in souls I see reincarnation as the "more logical" belief.
 
Top