Resurrection is more likely to be true than reincarnation. Discuss (35) For thousands of years human beings have entertained thoughts of afterlife, of something continuing on after their lives. Perhaps the implications of this have been the motivation to develop such beliefs. Perhaps it is the attraction of meeting loved ones again in the future, perhaps just a way to make the notion of karmic law sound more believable. Often, beliefs concerning life after death involve some kind of deity or god helping things along. A similarity between the two approaches I’m looking at (resurrection and reincarnation) is the fact they do not necessarily need to involve a god or deity in order to work. Although many use the example of the resurrection of Christ to say that there must have been a god involved, I will once more state that I don’ believe that resurrection or reincarnation has to be contingent on a supreme being, but instead just necessary, infinite natural laws that control and regulate themselves. Already, this has implications for religious and non-religious people. Essentially, it could mean that those who do not believe in a god or deity may still believe in the possibility of an afterlife (for example, an atheist may still believe in ‘ghosts’, in the classical sense), and although religious believers may use a god in their ideas about afterlife, it doesn’t have to be a part of their beliefs. In fact, looking from Hegel’s viewpoint of the rational kernel and the irrational husk, it could be quite easy to dismiss ‘afterlife’ to the irrational husk of religion. But where would be the fun in that? The main difference between resurrection and reincarnation lies in the definitions themselves: resurrection being when a being returns to life some time after they have died and reincarnation being some sort of ‘spirit’ within which, upon death, leaves one body to enter