At 3/20/10 06:11 PM, IAmTheDarkWizard wrote: Either [...]

Which is exactly what a theist would say... right Cache and Memorize?

At 3/20/10 03:56 PM, Memorize wrote: What would you say to someone

Depends on the quality of the argument, doesn't it?

who claims there is no purpose to anything

Anything at all? I mean, the purpose of a bicycle is to allow me travel from place A to place B faster, and the purpose of food is to satisfy my hunger.

Or do you mean a more narrow definition of "anything", like people's lives? True, they don't have a predetermmined purpose, doesn't mean people can make themselves a purpose, or just live fullfilling lives otherwise.

and that none of us really exist?

Well, on a theoretical level, might be that we don't exist. After all, how can we know, if something is so beyond our comprehension we can't see it. But on a practical level, if existance is some sort of collective hallucination, it's a pretty convincing, and internally logical one. Compared to fiction, dreams and delusions, what I would call reality in which we exist, tends to be pretty consistent on causality and physics.

Admittedly, I don't know much about nihilism to reallly adress it that much, but I don't get how Atheists became to opposite of their usual argument when talking to them.

At 3/20/10 08:31 PM, JohnnyWang wrote: Compared to fiction, dreams and delusions, what I would call reality in which we exist, tends to be pretty consistent on causality and physics.

Because you're cherry picking what you want to consider causality and physics. Theists cherry pick. You're using a theist argument.

Right Cache?

At 3/20/10 08:51 PM, Bacchanalian wrote:
Right Cache?

You know who also did arguments like that? HITLER.

At 3/20/10 06:11 PM, IAmTheDarkWizard wrote:

At 3/20/10 05:34 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 3/20/10 05:27 PM, IAmTheDarkWizard wrote:

Either you you somehow misunderstood my post, or you intentionally misrepresented my position.

Yeah that was a preety douchebag move, we know mem is smart enough to know what you meant so either he missed something or is intentionaly misrepresenting you.

Anyways to do with this topic , same thing happens here everytime a theists comes on. He spouts his uninformed opinion /false logic and then a gang bang of atheist's tear him a new one frankly it's getting kind of repetitive.

i don't understand why people have to seperate things into so many different groups that all wind up contradicting the others when it's alot easier to look at them as a whole. for example, maybe God[since most religions believe in a god, or gods], being an entity[or entities] that knows everything can do everything, is just my terminology for the cosmos. since the universe is practically infinate, and includes all things, God could be the universe. in that way he CAN do everything, he CAN know everything. i don't understand why people want to argue about it when, well to me anyway, it's easier to accept all points of view and interpret into one.

like karma. who say's it's not the same as God punishing you for sinning, or blessing you for doing good. they're 'seperate' beliefs, but they have the same fundamentals.

i guess what i'm trying to say is, why argue over who's right or wrong when it could just simply be a difference in terminology?

why criticize someone for understanding the world through a different mind, for incorporating his or her own beliefs into their understanding of things rather than trying to understand the world in the over-complicated magnifying glass of science?

nobody will ever be able to prove everything, except God. or the Universe if you'd rather it be put that way. the universe is proof of everything, otherwise we wouldn't exist. that's why we'll never be able to prove or disprove God. it's just a matter of faith, to what you put your faith into...

At 3/20/10 10:20 PM, CagedSilhouette wrote: God could be the universe.

We already have a word for the universe.

THE UNIVERSE.

i guess what i'm trying to say is, why argue over who's right or wrong when it could just simply be a difference in terminology?

Basically your solution is: Hey how about we just mash everything together so we're ALL wrong!

why criticize someone for understanding the world through a different mind

Not understanding something isn't "understanding it differently".

At 3/20/10 10:43 PM, poxpower wrote: stuff

so with that argument, you'd also say that all languages except yours are wrong, all the dialects and various accents are all wrong, except for the ones you use? i think you misunderstand what i'm trying to say.

what i'm saying is maybe what YOU call the UNIVERSE, is what I call GOD. and if i feel a presence of God, and feel i have a place and purpose here on earth, it would be the same as you knowing your place in the universe as if a tiny little spec of dust in the wind.

i'm not trying to start an argument, or dishonor your way of seeing things, of knowing things. i'm just saying, who are people like you to say who's right or wrong just because you don't agree. you can't prove or disprove a belief. that's why it's a belief, you have to put your faith into it in order to understand the truth in it.

At 3/20/10 11:05 PM, CagedSilhouette wrote:

i'm just saying, who are people like you to say who's right or wrong just because you don't agree.

Well who are YOU for saying you're not wrong about something and that people who don't agree with you must be wrong?

Basically your argument: HOW DARE YOU SAY I AM WRONG!

Great argument.

At 3/20/10 11:05 PM, CagedSilhouette wrote: so with that argument, you'd also say that all languages except yours are wrong

Not at all. Because translation from oen language to another does not necessarily net a distinct or incorrect meaning.

what i'm saying is maybe what YOU call the UNIVERSE, is what I call GOD. and if i feel a presence of God, and feel i have a place and purpose here on earth, it would be the same as you knowing your place in the universe as if a tiny little spec of dust in the wind.

No. It would be different, because the terminologies suggest, imply, and attribute different things to the universe/deity. Conclusions that constitute some derivative of one or the other are also arrived at through different sets of logic and 'evidence.' It is by these bases that the validity of the conclusions are determined. On that note...

"i don't understand why people have to seperate things into so many different groups"

... is a fundamental misrepresentation of what's going on here.

who are people like you to say who's right or wrong just because you don't agree.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautology_(
rhetoric)

you can't prove or disprove a belief. that's why it's a belief, you have to put your faith into it in order to understand the truth in it.

The fact that murder is the killing of another human being, does not make it reasonable to kill someone. [ Murder is killing another human being. That's why it's murder. ] Defining belief as a matter solely of faith in no way advocates belief under that definition - nor does it establish 'truth' in any objective sense.

You are claiming that a belief is held as an appeal to faith. An appeal to faith is a fallacy.

At 3/20/10 03:56 PM, Memorize wrote: What would you say to someone who claims there is no purpose to anything and that none of us really exist?

That I believe the only real "purpose" to anything is of a personal nature (can't agree with a universal purpose, but I know why I don't commit suicide, but I imagine my reasons are probably different then your reasons, hence why I go with the idea that purpose is subjective). As far as us not really existing, yeah, I believe I exist, you can believe whatever you like since it's one of those deceptively simple questions like "how do I know you see the same color blue that I see?". The only possible answer I can come up with is the logic of appealing to consensus reality and the evidence at hand that could prove existence.

I don't need any gods or supernatural explanations for any of that. So I'm still failing to see where you did an effective "gotcha" on atheists or those seriously questioning deities and the like.

At 3/20/10 10:43 PM, poxpower wrote:

At 3/20/10 10:20 PM, CagedSilhouette wrote: God could be the universe.

We already have a word for the universe.

THE UNIVERSE.

Why do you hate God?

At 3/21/10 12:17 AM, Mareak wrote: Why do you hate God?

Yup. Atheists are atheists because they're angry with the builder.

At 3/21/10 12:17 AM, Mareak wrote:

Why do you hate God?

He made me too smart to believe in him.

At 3/21/10 12:39 AM, poxpower wrote:

At 3/21/10 12:17 AM, Mareak wrote:

Why do you hate God?

He made me too smart to believe in him.

Non-sequitir FTW.

At 3/21/10 01:07 AM, Mareak wrote: Non-sequitir FTW.

Is that a charge against the validity of his response?

At 3/21/10 01:07 AM, Mareak wrote:

At 3/21/10 12:39 AM, poxpower wrote:

At 3/21/10 12:17 AM, Mareak wrote:

Why do you hate God?

He made me too smart to believe in him.

Non-sequitir FTW.

ARGUMENT FROM AUTHORITY!!!111

At 3/21/10 01:30 AM, Bacchanalian wrote:

At 3/21/10 01:07 AM, Mareak wrote: Non-sequitur FTW.

Is that a charge against the validity of his response?

In my initial question I wasn't even being serious to begin with. It seems even atheists (as rational as they claim to be) aren't immune to gullibility.

At 3/21/10 01:38 AM, Mareak wrote:

At 3/21/10 01:30 AM, Bacchanalian wrote:

At 3/21/10 01:07 AM, Mareak wrote: Non-sequitur FTW.

Is that a charge against the validity of his response?

In my initial question I wasn't even being serious to begin with. It seems even atheists (as rational as they claim to be) aren't immune to gullibility.

not all of them.

At 3/21/10 01:38 AM, Mareak wrote: In my initial question I wasn't even being serious to begin with. It seems even atheists (as rational as they claim to be) aren't immune to gullibility.

It's hard to tell what someone believes when the things they say in jest are less ridiculous than some of the things that get thrown around her genuinely - particularly when they're post history doesn't exactly lend itself to a thorough character analysis. But sure... I'm gullible. How the hell did I offend you?

At 3/20/10 03:56 PM, Memorize wrote: What would you say to someone who claims there is no purpose to anything and that none of us really exist?

I would ask if I could have all the money that they possess. After all, if they don't really exist and there is no purpose to anything, then why bother having it?

At 3/21/10 01:46 AM, Bacchanalian wrote: It's hard to tell what someone believes when the things they say in jest are less ridiculous than some of the things that get thrown around her genuinely - particularly when their post history doesn't exactly lend itself to a thorough character analysis.

The Internet was never a good medium for identifying sarcasm that much is true.

But sure... I'm gullible. How the hell did I offend you?

You didn't.

go on then. contradict the other i don't care. i'm comfortable where i stand in my beliefs. you can't prove me wrong, because it's a set of beliefs. and they are mine. plus, i exist, you can't prove that false. you can try, i suppose... but i don't care. i'm resigning from this argument.

At 3/21/10 02:28 PM, CagedSilhouette wrote: go on then. contradict the other i don't care. [snipped the re-statements]

Yeah you do. And you're "contradicting the other" just as much as anyone else.

At 3/19/10 07:57 PM, Ravariel wrote: Assumptions

You're assuming the complete opposite of all of that. Including the assumption that reincarnation isn't real.

You have no such set of case studies with which to back your claims, ergo your assumptions are far larger than ours.

I'm not an expert though. This conversation would be completly diffrent if you where talking to this guy.... who has over 3,000 documented cases with no other alternative explination.

At 3/19/10 10:24 PM, Imperator wrote: Yes, that's exactly what I meant by the psychological phenomena of confabulation: All black people are criminals.

Some people lie, some people don't. Just because a shit ton of people claim to be serial killers due to some crazy phenomena where they want attention, doesn't mean that some people aren't actually serial killers.

they're don't falsify the accuracy of 4 people.

Exactly.

But as long as one person says 2+2=5, you're gonna go with that.

I'm going to at least ask why they think that, then see if their story checks out. To just ignore their claims outright might cause me to ignore a very valuable peice of information. I'd feel real stupid if I told that person to 'fuck off' just to find out 25 years later that 2+2 does indeed, equal 5. It never hurts to listen...

You're just upset because no one has bought into your bullshit yet, and you expected people to be duped by your faulty assumptions and lack of intellect.

I like how it's faulty assumptions and lack of intellect when what little evidence we have is for religion... but when it's against religion, it's the smartest thing ever and pretty much proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.

At 3/19/10 10:51 PM, IAmTheDarkWizard wrote: Why has none of this "evidence" for reincarnation ever been published in a scientific journal?

It has been.

I am simply saying that so far there's been no valid evidence for reincarnation

None of those stories hold any value? None? Why not? Because they lean toward an idea you don't want to accept as a possibility? Or is because you're just assuming they're all lies even though you have no real reason to believe that?

Again, I'm not simply saying "I don't believe it," I'm saying I have no reason to believe in it because all there is is anecdotal evidence.

It's not the lack of belief that bothers me, it's the way in which people disbelieve. It's the double standard presented in this debate that's overlooked because the two sides are so evenly unmatched.

Durring this debate, not one person has ever said that I have a point, brougt up an interesting bit of information, or admited that I have even the slightest chance of being correct in my beliefs. Everybody claims that they know reincarnation isn't real and any doctor, study, article, or video I post is bullshit... a claim they're all allowed to make without having to provide any proof.

But if a thiest does the same thing in a related debate (say, evolution), then it's all about 'proof'. When a thiest points out that you don't know for sure that evolution is real it's all about what the evidence leans towards because you can't really prove anything. When this same logic is applied by a thiest towards something else (say, reincarnation) none of the previous rules apply.

It's funny how that works.

look, here's "proof" of mermaids.

It's not the same though. People said they saw something, but nobody can actually prove that they did. With the claims of reincarnation, you can verify what the people say. And when you do, you find out that these people are correct. Verified claims is a lot diffrent then just a story.

1) That the stories are double blind scientifically verified, fool proof, fraud proof
2) That the occurrences of "remembering" past lives is repeatable and a reliable phenomena
3) The existence of a soul, for which there is no real evidence so far.
4) That the stories could have no other explanation than reincarnation

1) doesn't work because evolution isn't fool proof yet it's still accepted.
2) Is true. It happens all over the world in all social classes and religious groups
3) Reincarnation does not need a soul, it could work in some other way
4) The children themselves are the ones claiming to have died and been reborn. It's not just memories and we assume it's death... they tell us they died and then came back.

At 3/20/10 03:21 PM, poxpower wrote: Again, the experts consensus is OVERWHELMINGLY clear: there's no such thing.

That's not true, the experts consesus is that it does exist. You're just ignoring all the 'experts' that claim it to be a real thing.

Your entire argument is constructed around you focusing on the discredited / inconclusive research...

If it's discredited, why don't you show me the proof? Discredit all 3,000 cases of Ian Stevenson and we'll talk. Until then, you're just claiming something without proof.

I can't think of any reason why scientists would not want reincarnation to be real

The same reason the religious don't want it to be false. You of all people should understand that.

How stupid would you feel if tomorrow God showed up and told you reincarnation was real and you where forced to eat every shit-headed assignine thing you've ever said to every theists ever before realizing an eternity of tourment awaited your immortal soul?

At 3/22/10 06:13 PM, CacheHelper wrote: I'm not an expert though.

No shit.....

Some people lie, some people don't. Just because a shit ton of people claim to be serial killers due to some crazy phenomena where they want attention, doesn't mean that some people aren't actually serial killers.

There is a level of plausibility here you seem to justify being ignored. What's more likely, the fact that there have been no demonstrably valid claims of reincarnation, or that the complete lack of empirical evidence is wrong?

You seem to equate lack of empiricism as empirical proof itself.

Exactly.

Yeah.....about that.....
I like to live in Reality, where empiricism seems to rule out over eyewitness accounts and personal experience.

So let's just put this in CSI terms and say the smoking gun and blood spatter patterns suggest these 4 people's personal, subjective experiences are contrary to the objective fact of the situation.

I'm going to at least ask why they think that, then see if their story checks out.

Which you haven't actually done. This is actually what everyone else in this thread is doing: Asking for some empirical backing. You're taking it on faith.

You see the problem? You think you're doing what we're doing. We're asking for 3rd party sources, we're asking for empirical backing, we're asking for repeatable experimentation, scientific consensus, and legitimate studies.

It would be AWESOME if you were checking whether their stories checked out, but you're not.......that's the problem. We are, and you're fighting that.

If it's true, it will stand up to the scrutiny. If it's not, then the things people are telling you here will capture that fact.

To just ignore their claims outright might cause me to ignore a very valuable peice of information.

Romans were actually giant lizard people.

Now by your logic, before you ignore that statement, you actually have to definitively prove Romans aren't actually giant lizard people.

You see the problem here? There's a gap of plausibility you're completely ignoring. It's one thing to encourage a little creativity and independence in formulating theories, but you're taking it about 5 steps too far.

I'd feel real stupid if I told that person to 'fuck off' just to find out 25 years later that 2+2 does indeed, equal 5. It never hurts to listen...

And yet, if someone walked up to you wearing a tinfoil hat and started talking about the end of the world and NWO conspiracy, you'd probably act completely different, and wonder why they hadn't been committed......

If I told you there was an invisible pink elephant on your bed, and you shouldn't sleep there any more because you'd crush him, what would you think? That you should check into my claim because "it never hurts to listen", or that I've probably gone off my medication?

I'm guessing the latter......

How stupid are you gonna feel going through life thinking 2+2=5 only to find out everyone who told you otherwise was actually right all along?

I'll happily be stupid in thinking 2+2=4, for if nothing else, I'm in good company. The fact that the consensus of the known world seems to be on my side is another good reason too, but I do admire the courage to stand alone.

I'll make sure your padded room has a nice view.

I like how it's faulty assumptions and lack of intellect when what little evidence we have is for religion...

Correction:
No evidence is for religion. Ergo, "leap of FAITH".

but when it's against religion, it's the smartest thing ever and pretty much proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.

God you are just THICK today.....

where's the claim against religion means "smartest thing ever" and "proven beyond a shadow of a doubt"?

There's no evidence against religion because it's untestable.
Things that are testable are only "against religion" because the Holy Books got those subjects wrong.

And quite frankly, Holy Books shouldn't be poking their noses into math, geology, history, etc anyways.

At 3/22/10 06:13 PM, CacheHelper wrote:

That's not true, the experts consesus is that it does exist.

No, it's not, that's a blatant outright lie.

Reincarnation is NOT supported in academia. Look up the number of papers that exist on actual, supported things like the placebo effect or the rabies vaccine and you'll realize it's hundreds of studies that were accepted by peer-review process.

All you have is a handful of crap research that the vast, vast majority of academia rejected or dismissed.

If it's discredited, why don't you show me the proof? Discredit all 3,000 cases of Ian Stevenson and we'll talk. Until then, you're just claiming something without proof.

I don't really see how many more times I can explain to you what the burden of proof is or that you don't "disprove" things.

How stupid would you feel if tomorrow God showed up and told you reincarnation was real and you where forced to eat every shit-headed assignine thing you've ever said to every theists ever before realizing an eternity of tourment awaited your immortal soul?

You suffer of a terminal case of the stupids son :o
Holy crap.

You're a liar and an idiot. Bye.

At 3/22/10 06:13 PM, CacheHelper wrote:

At 3/19/10 07:57 PM, Ravariel wrote: Assumptions

You're assuming the complete opposite of all of that. Including the assumption that reincarnation isn't real.

Just like I assume Chthulu, Zaphod Beeblebrox, and Superman aren't real. When the evidence overwhelmingly points to the lack of such a thing, then assuming that it doesn't exist is barely an assumption at all. Hell, I want you to be right. Unfortunately you have given me nothing that contradicts the science that has already been done. Like I said, Occam's Razor not only measures the number of assumptions, but their weight. Me assuming that empiricism is actuality, and you assuming it is not are not equal assumptions.

Also, assuming things like the scientific method and hundreds of years of repeated experimentation is, in fact, correct, is also not an assumption, any more than it is an assumption to believe that my computer and you both exist. I'm not about to allow you to degrade this into so post-modern nihilistic debate where everything is a matter of semantics, perception and everything is not only possible, but real for the sole reason that someone has, or might, imagined it.

I'm not an expert though. This conversation would be completly diffrent if you where talking to this guy.... who has over 3,000 documented cases with no other alternative explination.

...that you can think of. I can think of quite a few alternative explanations.

Even your wiki page states, and I quote:

"Stevenson was known for his study of reincarnation, which he termed the survival of the personality after death. He traveled extensively for 40 years to investigate 3,000 childhood cases that suggested to him the possibility of past lives. Stevenson saw reincarnation as an explanation for a range of phobias and unusual abilities, although he never suggested a physical process by which a personality might survive death."

And:

"Stevenson argued that the 3,000 or so cases he studied supported the possibility of reincarnation, though he was always careful to refer to them as "cases suggestive of reincarnation," or "cases of the reincarnation type."

Bolds are mine for emphasis. Also not on the wiki page were the distribution of where these 3,000 alleged cases were located, though it suggests that they were mostly in India, Sri Lanka, Thailand, and the Middle East many of whose religions have reincarnation as a central tenet. We've already shown repeatedly how religion can shape a person's beliefs and assumptions about the world. If you're taught from a young age that reincarnation is real, a child is likely to believe that he, himself, is a soul reincarnated, and be able to say, without lying intentionally, and completely believing the words exiting his mouth, that he "remembers" his past life.

Evidence in your wiki page suggests a lot of coincidence masked as evidence (a familiar strategy of conspiracy theorists), and while the studies seem to be sound, and some have garnered some interest of prominent scientists, they also occurred while Freud was still the central figure of psychology. Behaviorism was only beginning and our newer levels of understanding how the brain actually works haven't yet been able to put his methods to the test. If you can find some more recent experimentation that can corroborate his findings I'd be happy to look at it. But until that point, you have still not shown sufficient evidence of reincarnation.

Some people lie, some people don't. Just because a shit ton of people claim to be serial killers due to some crazy phenomena where they want attention, doesn't mean that some people aren't actually serial killers.

*cough*

I'm going to at least ask why they think that, then see if their story checks out. To just ignore their claims outright might cause me to ignore a very valuable peice of information. I'd feel real stupid if I told that person to 'fuck off' just to find out 25 years later that 2+2 does indeed, equal 5. It never hurts to listen...

I can prove that 1+1 = 3.

PROVE. 100%.

Do you believe me?

It has been.

Where? Source? I saw one Journal publication for your star witness, and that was more of a retrospective on one man's diligent work in a bizarre field, but little other evidence that suggests that his work has been picked up or published in any meaningful way.

None of those stories hold any value? None? Why not? Because they lean toward an idea you don't want to accept as a possibility? Or is because you're just assuming they're all lies even though you have no real reason to believe that?

Because none of them hold up to a standard "bullshit test" much less scientific rigor.

We WANT you to be right. We do. Well, some of us. As we said before, if you could prove it it would be the single most important scientific discovery since fire. It would be AWESOME. Please, give us a real reason to believe you.

...the two sides are so evenly unmatched.

I couldn't have said it better, myself.

But if a thiest does the same thing in a related debate (say, evolution), then it's all about 'proof'. When a thiest points out that you don't know for sure that evolution is real it's all about what the evidence leans towards because you can't really prove anything. When this same logic is applied by a thiest towards something else (say, reincarnation) none of the previous rules apply.

Evolution is not unproven. Theory =/= guess.

1) doesn't work because evolution isn't fool proof yet it's still accepted.

Evolution is not unproven. Theory =/= guess.

2) Is true. It happens all over the world in all social classes and religious groups

PROVE IT. PLEASE.

3) Reincarnation does not need a soul, it could work in some other way

hwha..? How?

4) The children themselves are the ones claiming to have died and been reborn. It's not just memories and we assume it's death... they tell us they died and then came back.

I tell you that there's an invisible pink elephant on your bed. It must be true because I said it! Also, it is completely impossible for a person to believe something that is untrue. Hint: that was sarcasm.

That's not true, the experts consesus is that it does exist. You're just ignoring all the 'experts' that claim it to be a real thing.

Really? How many scientists actually believe reincarnation to be true? Where is this secret massive consensus? SHOW ME. One scientist with 3,000 alleged cases of "possible" reincarnation (HIS word, not mine), whose science is debatable at best does not a consensus make.

I can respect any views towards religions just so long as they keep it to themselves. I have a hard enough time trying to swallow my pride without your ideals and mindsets being jammed down my throat. Take a look at the universe. No seriously, look at it. You don't matter. I don't matter. We don't matter. Humans have been around 200,000 years, generously. This means humans have been alive (even in their earliest forms) for %1.42-5 of the universe. That little -5 means it's a really fucking small number. Now if you didn't look at that link I told you to, you might not understand how insignificant we are, and the best way to make my point is for you to look at that link. But the point is.
We're totally fucking irrelevant. We mean nothing. Looking at how big the universe is, I can't find it plausible that it was all made entirely for us, even though we'll never get the chance to see any of it. As humans, we can comprehend and understand 5 senses. These 5 senses make up what we know about reality. Who is to say there's isn't more complex things lurking around in the realms of existence that our inferior monkey brains aren't able to comprehend. We're limited to what we can hear, smell, see, touch and taste. There's bound to be things out there we don't, can't, and won't ever understand but I highly doubt that it's an almighty deity who will deem your soul to an eternity in damnation if you don't thank him for the Pizza Hut you were about to sit down and eat.
Religion was created thousands of years before anybody could understand what was happening. Desert goat herders 3,000 years ago didn't know more about the cosmos and biology than modern day scientists. When things happened that couldn't be explained (which was pretty much everything), it was the doing of a god. These things can be explained now, and I understand that the generation gap means the war is never won, and that tradition is branded into our DNA. This is why I won't yell at you for being an idiot if you tell me you're religious. I'm fine with that.

Cache...

How does someone remembering a past life necessarily prove that it is their past life - that they are reincarnated?

If you claim that reincarnation, "could work in some other way" (essentially any other way), then how can you guarantee that it is reincarnation that is taking place and not some other thing, working in any way, manifesting similarly?

And, by the way, had reincarnation been empirically proven, you would not have the leeway to claim that reincarnation works any arbitrary way.