I remember hearing about a 5 year old who said he fought in WW2 and was a bomber pilot. However, the kid loved watching old WWII footage on the television since he was 2. it all makes sense now. Great find.

I was reincarnated, I lived a past life as a person with Amnesia. I dont remember much though.

People who believe they had a past life usually don't have much of one in their current life.

I myself was never reincarnated. But I was once replaced by an exact duplicate of me for awhile. The pronoun situation became a little confusing, though, so we switched back.

Most people that comment on reincarnation don't really understand it.

It's not literal, for one thing – you aren't going down on the Titanic one minute and being born in Poughkeepsie the next, with all of those memories intact.

In fact, it has more in common with Einstein's theories than it does with Audrey Rose, or any other Hollywoodesque perspective.

Still Brian's joke was funny.

"Most people that comment on reincarnation don't really understand it."

whereas all people who pull out the phrase "einstein's theories" out of their asses, are knowledgeable and articulate champions of truth and reason.

I agree with tylonius that Brian's joke was funny.

But the article cited is vacuous, and it just seems to afford people a simple opportunity to laugh at a caricature of metaphysical philosophy.

whereas all people who pull out the phrase "einstein's theories" out of their asses, are knowledgeable and articulate champions of truth and reason.

I thought this joke was funnier.

The article is vacuous? How? I pretty clearly understood it. I would like to read the full study, however.

Willey: I think you're referring to http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2005/07/reincarnation_a.html

You can see that ABC edited the interview to make it sound more miraculous than it actually was.

offtopic note: I sent the link to the article to an uncle of mine who lives in India. His first words were "f*cking christians".

I thought it was sad, depressing and morbidly funny at the same time. I told him, "well, a reaction by someone out here would have been 'F*ing atheists'". He hasn't replied since. I think I touched off a nerve there.

So the Dali Lama is just a new-age goof ball or something? I'm not saying I totally believe that past lives or future lives are certain or possible, but in light the miraculous things we, as humans on this little tiny planet, have invented and found out, I think we would all excessively naive to assume we - in our present form - are the end. I love science and tend to utilize scientific research whenever possible, but there are just some things science can't answer, at least not yet.

So the Dali Lama is just a new-age goof ball or something? I'm not saying I totally believe that past lives or future lives are certain or possible, but in light the miraculous things we, as humans on this little tiny planet, have invented and found out, I think we would all excessively naive to assume we - in our present form - are the end. I love science and tend to utilize scientific research whenever possible, but there are just some things science can't answer, at least not yet.

Well, we're all reincarnated matter...dinosaur poop and the like. Sure, it's a bit of a stretch to pull person to person reincarnation out of that but hey...

And as far as I'm concerned no one is past memory errors. Hell, sometimes it's hard to know whether you did x or y years back, let alone what I had for dinner last Tuesday.

What gets me is that too many people are concerned with other's beliefs when those beliefs have little consequence for anybody else around. Sure, you can research it all you want but don't tell me it's for the greater good. You just want to do it for you. That's fine. Scientists, like everyone else are in it for themselves. That's just humans for ya.

I draw the line when personal beliefs of the religious nature affect public policy. Beyond that, believe what the heck you like. It has little to do with me.

As for me - I was a palm in my past life. It was a good life and I had many fronds.

so what does Sam Harris make of all this?

or this guy? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Stevenson

http://www.healthsystem.virginia.edu/internet/personalitystudies/

I'm sorry to say this my friend but this article is disgusting. The white man is once again trying to prove to the world that he is better than millions of people that believe in reincarnation in the east and tens of thousands of years of tradition. People should research things first and then talk to experts in the field, not read this bogus pseudo-scientific articles.

The white man is once again trying to prove to the world that he is better than millions of people that believe in reincarnation in the east and tens of thousands of years of tradition. People should research things first and then talk to experts in the field, not read this bogus pseudo-scientific articles

First Bob, the article has nothing at all to do with skin color. Second, tradition is a poor measure of truth, and finally where are the 'scientific articles' that support reincarnation.

I think Bob was colorblind in a previous life and is overcompensating.

exactly I was just about to say hes full of shit but you beat me to the punch.

I draw the line when personal beliefs of the religious nature affect public policy. Beyond that, believe what the heck you like. It has little to do with me.

I agree...

...this article is disgusting. The white man is once again... gibber gibber

...but only just barely.

The white man is once again trying to prove to the world that he is better than millions of people that believe...

You have GOTTA be kidding me! I mean, my first reaction is, this guy is trolling.

But then I realized something: If you point out that stigmata is a self-induced, psychosomatic phenomenon, Bill Donahue will denounce you as anti-Catholic. If you are concerned about the way Israel deals with Palestinians, you are an anti-Semite. And if you don't like suicide comber, you're an Islamophobe.

So obviously, if a Westerner dare offer an opinion on something that is mostly practiced by non-whites, you are a white supremacist. Yeah, that makes sooooo much sense.

This is the kinda bullshit, wildly politically correct thinking that ends with a German judge ruling that a Muslim woman can't get a divorce in spite of the fact that her husband beat her -- because according to the Koran, that's okay.

I draw the line when personal beliefs of the religious nature affect public policy. Beyond that, believe what the heck you like. It has little to do with me.

Don't you think if people stop talking critically and rationally about each other's beliefs, no matter how innocuous they sound, that you would always have a range of beliefs that are always at the margin and sometimes crossing the line of affecting public policy? And then we lose valuable time and resources like we are doing now trying to fend off idiots like IDers and New Agers.

People don't just believe in either innocuous or harmful beliefs, there's a whole range from one to the other, and what do you do with those that just retreat a little so that later they can come up with more force? I say let's rationally criticize everyone's beliefs, no matter how harmful or not they may seem. Of course not on the elevator or at a party, just when discourse is called for.

And by the way, to those saying that reincarnation is not the "caricature" we purport it to be. Can you explain exactly and clearly what you mean by reincarnation?

I'd like to know especially how it relates to Einstein or any of his theories in any way. I'll just assume that you don't mean any of the relativity theories, since that's just plain stupid. So let's start with his lesser-known theories, which I guess is what you mean, you know, since citing relativity, general or special, to support reincarnation, is just plain ignorant. So I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you meant one of his other theories.

Thanks.

I agree that when discourse is called for it's appropriate to analyze people's beliefs etc.. Unfortunately, when it's not relevant to a specific gripe (e.g. public policy) and it's directed at pointing out someone else's so called "fallacies" or odd beliefs (or whatever you decide to call them there's one particular problem. If you really, actually care about proving them wrong you're doing it primarily to make yourself feel superior (don't argue with me - just pay attention next time to how you feel when you're discussing their irrationality). You'll know what I'm talking about. This is why I rarely engage in such discussions because it's self serving and an ego issue. On the other hand, if you really don't care then you're in a much better position to have a discourse, if the occasion arises. But then again, if you don't care you might not as well bother as there may be better ways to use your time.

This is why I draw that line between beliefs that really affect me directly and those that don't. Converting others to share the same beliefs (rational or irrational) is very much an attempt to control the world around you. I see it only as pertinent when it is a public policy issue. Beyond that I try to abstain from "correcting/analyzing" other's beliefs (unless they try to force their crap on me..). and in those cases I try only to point out their use of logic but only when it suits their purpose (e.g. hypocrisy).

Overall, there are just better ways for me to use my time than to go that route.

Any Buddhist who isn't subject to the trapping of new age mysticism or tradition would take this study without any guff at all. We don't know what happens when we die other than we rot or get burnt and thrown in the river. Anything past that is purely speculative, including heaven, hell, nirvana or reincarnation.

A study like this may affect Christians, but it shouldn't Buddhists.

I disagree somewhat. I usually only discuss this with people I actually care about, or at least have some trust with. I have some japanese friends now, and I don't know if you know how many superstitions they believe in. Probably one of the most common, and it's largely taken for granted by absolutely all japanese I've talked with, is that behavior is related to blood type, in the same sense that it's related to your "sign" here in the west. And there's the titanium patches, magnet patches, etc, etc. So whenever the subject comes up, I try to tell them why it's wrong. Not because I feel superior, believe it or not, but because of their way of taking this crap for granted without questioning it they're being scammed. And virtually all my western friends believe in astrology and superstition in some measure, so you can imagine.

And even if I did feel superior, it wouldn't be the main reason I'd do it. I care a lot about my people (I mean friends and family), so if I think I can help then there. It is not about them sharing "my beliefs" either. I invite them to question me, and find out for themselves if what I'm saying it's actually true.

Most people believe in superstition almost by default, and it's mostly because they don't bother to question it. If one read just a little about astronomy, or biology, it would be very, very hard to believe in astrology or creationism. So the information is there, I only ask them to look for it.

My reply above was for Jib, just in case.

I always love articles like this.

As humans we're relatively simple, predictible group animals that are far too proud. I get a kind of sick pleasure out of watching the weaker ones squirm whenever someone comes out with anything that challenges their spiritual, cultural, or traditional comforts, like pouring water on ants as they cling for life onto nearby debris.

As people there are always reasons and influences as to why we do the things we do. Its very cause and effect. But then, for some people its just doesn't go as good with popcorn as some good special effects.

Which would you prefer to be, an "Indian princess" or a "battlefield commander?" Talk about gender stereotyping.

I'd like to do a thematic analysis of people's past-life occupations and just sit back and laugh at the significant patterns.

I'd just like to know why most who claim to have past lives are always someone 1) rich, 2) pwerful, and/or 3) famous.

Why can't a past life be one of misery, slavery, strife, and destitution?

I'm just sayin'.

Given that the number of people alive today is, on generally speaking, greater than the number of people alive at any point in the past, do spirits of dead people split into more spirits or do new spirits turn up? The former excuse would help to explain the number of people who claim to have been Cleopatra. Of course the most logical theory remains that spirits don't exsist, but then how do you explain the fact that so many people actually bought copies of Walk like an Egyptian?

This was best satirised in the 1950s - a book about a past life called "The Quest for Bridie Murphy" was given the Stan Freburg treatment as "The Quest for Bridie Hammerschlaugen"

Malcolm,

You mean that you were also Cleopatra in a past life? No way... get outta here!