does the basis of Buddhism make sense?

[Amorphos]

does the basis of Buddhism make sense? an inquiry not a criticism!

firstly, here’s a short quote concerning the difference between rebirth and reincarnation to get the idea going...

the essential difference is a term called Atman. in the Vedic sense, it is used to indicate the Self and it is this Atman which is reincarnated until such time as it merges with the Supramundane Atman. the Buddha Dharma teaches that there is no Atman that exists in this manner and, as such, there is nothing that is incarnated to begin with.. consequently, no reincarnation.”

the opening notion

“the Buddhist Suttas often use the imagery of one candle flame lighting another to illustrate rebirth. the flame on the new candle cannot come into existence without the old flame but they are not the same flame”.

my inquiery

this makes me wonder why the second flame is in anyway the first. i mean it is perhaps only a self centric vision of things and our own self importance which thinks we should continue - according to this notion.
why not just have two flames rather than one that becomes another? if there is nothing that connects the two then why is one reborn at all?

let us say that the candle of the two flames represents the reality between the two flames, we may ask why is it that two flames are thought of as ‘one being the continuance of the other’? imagine if you will all flames across the universe all belonging to one candle! how does it make sense that we can pull out one flame and its apparent next incarnation from the zillions of others? there must remain a given factor by which the two are one, or there simply is no connection.

“it is not the first other than the first flame gave rise to the second”

if there is no candle, then the one goes directly to the next. so what exactly is it that goes from one to the next, surely there must be a migratory factor?
an atheist for example, would say that we are entirely of the human form, thus there would be no ‘self’ ‘inner self’ or what have you [‘X’], that would carry on. this makes sense if there is no rebirth or reincarnation, but it cannot be true if either case is true!

what happens when there are no more forms to incarnate too [e.g. in the event of the end of humanity or even the end of the universe]? what would happen to the karma by which we apparently should be incarnated, we would enter nirvana by default. the teachings of dharma then, would only be relevant while there is a potential rebirth, if this is the case what happens when there is no potential rebirth connection such as in times of war when there are less people being born due the deaths of soldiers? by this i mean that, you could have say 50,000 soldiers die and only the usual amount of babies being born and hence a mathematical mismatch. there would then have to be a 'place' to which 'X' hangs around until the next incarnation.