You find information that backs up their version of the life and death of the person. Often this information is very hard to find, especially for children. The child could not have gone to the town hall in England from Rumania or talked to archaeologists etc. Of course complicated and long term conspiracies by the parents are possible, but given the fact that many of these cases involve poor families the odds seem very low to me. Now you are assuming he is a loony. If you actually met, talked to or read his work you wuold not consider him a loony. He is, in fact, going about this issue in as scientific a way as is possible. And he very thoroughly challenges the subjects and the data and rarely talks of proof himself. You don't know him, yet you need him to be a loony. This means you have an emotional investment in reincarnation not being true. Apart from the fact that this kind of bias is supposed to be anathama to scientists it just shows how irrational science groupies can be.
What's wrong with believing in life after death? Reincarnation? Why not just admit that we don't know for certain, but there is certainly a lot of evidence that both life after death and reincarnation DO exist. There are many, many mystical happenings each and every day that nobody can explain, except to say they are probably spirit-based. There are many children documents as having recalled their life differently from the one they are currently living...listing things such as family members, birth and death dates, and picking out objects that were well known to them in that particular time period. I read these posts, I see how cynical so many people are - choosing not to believe in anything except their own depressing ideas. If you want to believe in nothing at all, more power to you. Personally, I prefer to believe that life goes on, the human soul is a reality that lives on, crosses over to another plane, etc. Hey - even if I'm totally off base, at least I have a smile on my face!
It was a rhetorical question, to answer why the guy spent his time. He was convinced he's right, therefore... Again, you're making assumptions. I don't particularly consider hime aloony - it was to answer why someone would fund something that could possibly be a hoax. Emotional investment? Hardly. Read my earlier replies.
And obviously you're making assumptions about me when you don't know anything at all about me or what I do. Not a smart thing to do. And the "knowledge" comes from where? Yourself - not some external repositiory of truth. Anything you "learn" from meditation is not necessarily the truth. Because they don't try. Concentration is hardly foreign to me: I do it every single day. So because someoen gets an answer you don't it means THEY are wrong and not you? Egotist. And you know this how? Evidence or belief?
Reincarnation is not proved and cannot be proved. It is a question of faith. Since it is hard to believe in God for many people, reincarnation gives a nice alternative. It is nicer to think of, than after death you are going to decompose in the ground. Also, correct me if I am wrong. If I remember correctly, the concept of reincarnation (in hinduism and buddism) does not contain any memory of past lives. Also, there are a small minority of people who are supposed to come back as human beings. Most we be much lower lifeformes. How can he find 3000 people who had past lifes? Any of them told about the exciting times they were mice?
It certainly could be proved. If you could provide evidence from your memories of things not yet discovered by archaologists, as one example, say a great deal of detail about the tools and lifestyle of a particular group...if you could reveal hitherto unknown details of a certain dead person's life that were later verified through something found in a crypt, or documents that had not come to life, these would be strong indications. If you amass a large amount of these instances it would begin to constitute proof. Further for those who remember it is not based on faith. Another way it can be proved is when two or more people 'see' the past life of a person and separately write down details which are later compared. I have experienced this along with memories that helped explain behavior and problems I had in this life. the other people did not know me personally. I realize that this does not constitute proof for you, but I want to make it very clear that my belief is not based on faith but on experience and logic. Skeptics, unscientifically, make this claim over and over. That belief is based on fear of death, never thinking that they need to provide any proof for their 'intuition'. Certainly some people have that as a motivation or as a partial one, but you just give me the link to the scientific research that proves your point. Or is it OK for you to toss out theories based on faith? You are wrong about Hindus and Buddhists, many remember past lives or portions thereof. And both of these groups filter their ideas about past lives through cultural distortions. The Hindus and their caste system, for example. there are many other groups that believe in past lives, further there are many people who have not been exposed to the belief but who have memories when they are children. many of these cases are the ones he investigated since children are less likely to be able to maintain a facade or to be able to remember the details they are claiming to remember.
and yet he chose, oddly, to go about the investigation using scientific methods, challenging witnesses, doing vast research to check their claims and keeping a thorough records of things that did not fit with historical record or living witness testimony, etc. Ever consider that his belief in reincarnation grew out of the research from curiosity to a greater sense that there might actually be something to this. Nah, if it goes against current scientific thinking then anyone who believes in it must be irrational and biased. Sorry, I'm still getting emotional investment.
Conservation of energy? If souls are energy, of course. But I've often wondered ....if we do all go to heaven, what the hell are we going to do there? Perhaps reincarnation is just a way for souls to entertain themselves ....or come back to try it all again? Or is heaven going to be as overpopulated as the Earth is now? Baron Max
Don't mean there ain't none! Or are you suggesting that if the great One_Raven can't see it or understand it, then it can't be true or valid? Baron Max
Yeah ive heard about this study also, the data he found is pretty damn compelling really, it would be foolish to not consider the possiblity.
I read a book about him (a washingtonpost reporter wrote it). He provided evidence that isn't easy to dimiss.
I recently posted this in the Archetype thread in Comparitive Religion regarding Rupert Sheldrake's research (there is a LOT more than this). I think that most any "proof" of reincarnation I have heard of, could just as easily be viewed as suggesting some sort of common consciousness or "psychic" communication.
It is the simplest, most elegant explanation for what I have experienced. I have remembered a particular and had others independently remember that I was such and such a person in relation to them. I do not remember as many details of their past lives nor they mine. Also psychological patterns that I have in this life fit with patterns in that life. I have also 'seen' portions of peoples past lives - often the primary emotional crux or burden (or their death and the context of it) - which they have already experienced portions of themselves independently - despite the fact that I have no memory of being in that village etc. This does not seem to fit your pool of memories, a kind of Jungian collective unconscious. The memories are personal, local, and only shared as this life memories are shared. The identification is as strong as I have to memories of myself as a child. Philosophers have at times wrung their hands over the selfs continuity of time, is this illusion or not. My phenomenological, emotional and intellectual experience of this is that these memories are the same as this life memories. The process of getting at my own often involves some effort or pain, similar to getting the PTSD memories. And just like these sometimes there are flashbacks. Travel has really brought up some of these. As always I feel I have to point out that I know the above does not in anyway constitute proof for you. But I like to emphasize that my belief is not based on faith. Nor is it based on fear of death. You have to face death, essentially to get at these memories and some of these deaths have been worse (I certainly hope) than any death I might face this time. Torture, etc. And as an aside: I have noticed a pattern: those who say that believers (in such things) believe because they cannot face death, tend to be people who have not gone as deeply as I have into emotions. They tend to be more mental and disconnected. I think the myth of the stoic and somehow braver athiest/realist is a myth. Oops, that was redundant.
