If You Were To Take A Holiday In...
ChatterBank0 min ago
A strong case for reincarnation?
47 Answers
Cases which seem to point to personal survival after death and reincatnation not only happen in Asian countries which share the notion of rebirth, but also occur in the West. The following is from Britain. In 1942 a Dornier airplane and its German crew of 4 was shot down and crashed onto a railway in the northern town of Middlesbrough. 3 of the crew were found and buried but the wreckage of the plane carrying the 4th crewman wasn`t discovered until 1997. The place of this crash was just a few hundred yards from the spot where a young man, age 22, called Carl Edon was murdered in 1995. All his life Carl had spoken to his family and friends of flashbacks he`d been having of memories of his former life as a Nazi airman who was killed when his plane was shot down in 1942. He did his best to convince them of his reincarnation but it wasn`t until after his death that they were finally able to accept it as a truth. His experiences were documented in the local Gazette when he was just 9 yrs old. A local historian, Bill Norman, decided to investigate the matter and tracked down the family of the German airman, whose name was Heinrich Richter, in Germany. He brought back with him a photo of Richter in his uniform and when Carl`s parents saw the photo they were too stunned to speak. The resemblance to their dead son was uncanny. During the excavation of the German bomber it was discovered that Richter`s leg had been severed and was still inside his boot. Carl had often mentioned the fact that he had lost his right leg in the crash and he was born with a birthmark at the top of that leg. After all these eerie coincidences Carl`s parents had no choice but to accept that reincatnation was a reality after all. They joined 300 mourners at a moving funeral service for Richter who was 24 when he died.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by MsEVP. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
You see, naomi, keeping an open mind about things that cannot be proved as fact, no matter how absurd, surely lands you in deep water. To illustrate what I mean I will make a confession:
All this time that I�ve been pretending to be an atheist I have, in fact, been a member of the KiHiRo religion. The central tenet of this is that whenever a blue moon occurs for exactly five seconds over Buenos Aires at midnight on February 29th an eighteen-foot man with three heads and magenta hair appears for that same five seconds over a roof in Kilburn High Road � hence the religion�s name.
Now I cannot prove this, so you are now lumbered with having to keep an open mind about it. Give me half an hour and I�ll think up a lot more daft things like that for you to sit on the fence about. None of them will be any dafter than reincarnation, which makes no sense in theory and for which there is no evidence in practice.
(Yes, I�ve finished the quiz, although I still don�t understand the last five words in the clue to 57.)
All this time that I�ve been pretending to be an atheist I have, in fact, been a member of the KiHiRo religion. The central tenet of this is that whenever a blue moon occurs for exactly five seconds over Buenos Aires at midnight on February 29th an eighteen-foot man with three heads and magenta hair appears for that same five seconds over a roof in Kilburn High Road � hence the religion�s name.
Now I cannot prove this, so you are now lumbered with having to keep an open mind about it. Give me half an hour and I�ll think up a lot more daft things like that for you to sit on the fence about. None of them will be any dafter than reincarnation, which makes no sense in theory and for which there is no evidence in practice.
(Yes, I�ve finished the quiz, although I still don�t understand the last five words in the clue to 57.)
Not at all, Chakka, but even if it does land me in deep water, I�m a good swimmer - as you may have noticed. As you know, I cannot deny that I�ve experienced a number of odd occurrences myself, and, therefore, because some accounts of reincarnation cannot be readily explained, then, logically, I have to keep an open mind on this subject. It would, of course, be far easier for me to dismiss it, as you do, but experience has taught me that there are things happening in this universe that, at the moment, we can�t explain. Nevertheless, I have every confidence that one day science will find the answers - but probably not until long after you and I are pushing up daisies - unfortunately!
I must say your God sounds rather attractive. I�m not at all surprised you�ve gone for him. So much more pleasant than the other chap. My only problem with your newly-found faith, Chakka, is that you appear to be the only one who�s seen this fine fellow, and therefore I must assume that you are deluded - just as I must assume that those who believe in the other bloke, whom they�ve NEVER seen, are deluded. No evidence - no open mind. Sorry Chakka. A G&T might help soften the blow - and do please pour me one whilst you�re at the drinks cabinet. An amicable discussion over a drink or two this afternoon would be very pleasant indeed. What a lovely thought. :o)
No. 57. The operative word there is �bowl�.
I must say your God sounds rather attractive. I�m not at all surprised you�ve gone for him. So much more pleasant than the other chap. My only problem with your newly-found faith, Chakka, is that you appear to be the only one who�s seen this fine fellow, and therefore I must assume that you are deluded - just as I must assume that those who believe in the other bloke, whom they�ve NEVER seen, are deluded. No evidence - no open mind. Sorry Chakka. A G&T might help soften the blow - and do please pour me one whilst you�re at the drinks cabinet. An amicable discussion over a drink or two this afternoon would be very pleasant indeed. What a lovely thought. :o)
No. 57. The operative word there is �bowl�.
naomi, well, of course, if you think that there are inexplicable cases of something like reincarnation then you are quite right. But where are they? Until they are identified, then it remains as unbelievable as astrology, alien abductions and the Easter Bunny, though not as charming as the latter.
Good heavens, what makes you think that I have seen this KiHiRo creature? That's not how religion works, is it? Nobody has seen Zeus, Apollo, the Judaeo/Christian 'God' or Jesus, have they? It would spoil the fun to assume that you have to see a deity to believe in it. Pull yourself together, naomi!
Hey, oneeyedvic, three of us! Shall we start a church? Wowee!
Good heavens, what makes you think that I have seen this KiHiRo creature? That's not how religion works, is it? Nobody has seen Zeus, Apollo, the Judaeo/Christian 'God' or Jesus, have they? It would spoil the fun to assume that you have to see a deity to believe in it. Pull yourself together, naomi!
Hey, oneeyedvic, three of us! Shall we start a church? Wowee!
Hello Vic Noooooo �.. You�ve missed the point completely. There may be three of you in this religion now (mmm�that sounds vaguely familiar), but none of you have any evidence to offer to support the existence of your God. It is simply a belief, and no different to a belief in any other God - so an open mind from me isn�t an option.
On the other hand Chakka even though you too appear to have missed the point insofar as your God goes - which frankly surprises me - there are authenticated reports of cases of possible reincarnation. Now you know I don�t go in for hocus pocus, Chakka, and I know you wouldn�t want me to go scrabbling through Google in search of the Twilight Zone, (and if you do, you�re out of luck), but I have found this, from a reputable source, and talking about a reputable scientist, which might be of interest to you.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/154 2356/Professor-Ian-Stevenson.html
Wonder if he ever came back? Sorry I digress.
You can believe that reincarnation is possible, or not, but in reality neither you nor Vic, or anyone else, knows, and that being the case, if you�re totally honest, you can only say you don�t know - which is precisely what I am saying.
Spock �.. Too late, I�m afraid, dear. Your reputation goes before you. :o)
Now where�s that G&T?
Incidentally Tina, that thread you so admired seems to have died a death - and I doubt it will ever be reincarnated! Hate to say I told you so. :o/
On the other hand Chakka even though you too appear to have missed the point insofar as your God goes - which frankly surprises me - there are authenticated reports of cases of possible reincarnation. Now you know I don�t go in for hocus pocus, Chakka, and I know you wouldn�t want me to go scrabbling through Google in search of the Twilight Zone, (and if you do, you�re out of luck), but I have found this, from a reputable source, and talking about a reputable scientist, which might be of interest to you.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/154 2356/Professor-Ian-Stevenson.html
Wonder if he ever came back? Sorry I digress.
You can believe that reincarnation is possible, or not, but in reality neither you nor Vic, or anyone else, knows, and that being the case, if you�re totally honest, you can only say you don�t know - which is precisely what I am saying.
Spock �.. Too late, I�m afraid, dear. Your reputation goes before you. :o)
Now where�s that G&T?
Incidentally Tina, that thread you so admired seems to have died a death - and I doubt it will ever be reincarnated! Hate to say I told you so. :o/
what interests me, naomi, is how you sort out which weird things you're going to keep an open mind about and which not.
The point of my analogy is that if your attitude is that you should keep an open mind about anything that we cannot prove either way, then you must certainly sit on the fence regarding my 18-foot man. But I bet you don't. Why not?
My attitude is more consistent: I don't believe in the 18-foot man (I have to confess) because (a) it is patently absurd, and (b) there is not a shred of evidence to support it.
Similarly, I don't believe in reincarnation because (a) it is patently absurd, and (b) there is not a shred of evidence to support it.
In case you doubt the latter claim then I'd be interested in any piece of serious research you can name which finds any basis for belief in reincarnation. I can find none.
If you want to know about the flaws in Professor Ian Stevenson's methods, Google The Skeptic's Dictionary and look him up in that.
The point of my analogy is that if your attitude is that you should keep an open mind about anything that we cannot prove either way, then you must certainly sit on the fence regarding my 18-foot man. But I bet you don't. Why not?
My attitude is more consistent: I don't believe in the 18-foot man (I have to confess) because (a) it is patently absurd, and (b) there is not a shred of evidence to support it.
Similarly, I don't believe in reincarnation because (a) it is patently absurd, and (b) there is not a shred of evidence to support it.
In case you doubt the latter claim then I'd be interested in any piece of serious research you can name which finds any basis for belief in reincarnation. I can find none.
If you want to know about the flaws in Professor Ian Stevenson's methods, Google The Skeptic's Dictionary and look him up in that.
Chakka, There mere fact you use the term �weird� says much about your apparent inability, or more likely, blanket refusal, to consider the possibility of anything outside the immediate scope of your personal knowledge, which of course would produce an attitude more consistent than mine, since my curiosity, it seems, far outweighs yours. Perhaps some things aren�t weird at all. Perhaps they�re natural, but perhaps we don�t realise that yet.
I didn�t say I keep an open mind about anything we can�t prove, and I believe I explained why I keep an open mind on some things, and not others.
Since no one could deny that Professor Stevenson was an eminent and well-educated man, I would say his work constituted serious research., but even though his studies did not produce conclusive proof, he studied children who spoke of people and places they couldn�t possibly have been aware of, and that in itself produced unanswerable questions. If you think about it logically, what, in the case of reincarnation would ever constitute conclusive proof? We can�t reverse time.
Continued
I didn�t say I keep an open mind about anything we can�t prove, and I believe I explained why I keep an open mind on some things, and not others.
Since no one could deny that Professor Stevenson was an eminent and well-educated man, I would say his work constituted serious research., but even though his studies did not produce conclusive proof, he studied children who spoke of people and places they couldn�t possibly have been aware of, and that in itself produced unanswerable questions. If you think about it logically, what, in the case of reincarnation would ever constitute conclusive proof? We can�t reverse time.
Continued
Continued
Pointing me in the direction of the Skeptic�s Dictionary is rather worrying, Chakka, old chap. It�s like Theland pointing me in the direction of the bible and telling me that this is what it says, and therefore it must be so. Sceptics, by their very nature, are sceptical, so that proves absolutely nothing.
The point is you don�t know and neither do I, and that being the case, isn�t it rather arrogant to take the high ground and tell anyone who does possess a modicum of curiosity that their quest for knowledge is absurd? Thank goodness the scientists of the past didn�t take that attitude. We�d still be living in caves. I wouldn�t mind betting that the Chakka ancestors were those pompous Victorians who huffed and puffed and insisted that man would never fly. A heavier than air machine could never get off the ground, could it? No, of course not. Patently absurd.
Pointing me in the direction of the Skeptic�s Dictionary is rather worrying, Chakka, old chap. It�s like Theland pointing me in the direction of the bible and telling me that this is what it says, and therefore it must be so. Sceptics, by their very nature, are sceptical, so that proves absolutely nothing.
The point is you don�t know and neither do I, and that being the case, isn�t it rather arrogant to take the high ground and tell anyone who does possess a modicum of curiosity that their quest for knowledge is absurd? Thank goodness the scientists of the past didn�t take that attitude. We�d still be living in caves. I wouldn�t mind betting that the Chakka ancestors were those pompous Victorians who huffed and puffed and insisted that man would never fly. A heavier than air machine could never get off the ground, could it? No, of course not. Patently absurd.
Oh dear, naomi, now look what you�ve done: got your thinking praised by msEVP! I wouldn�t have wished that intellectual death on you, and be assured that I don�t accept it.
1. Your idea that I do not care about things outside my personal knowledge, and am not curious, would bring a very loud laugh from my family and friends, who know me as an obsessive about learning new things. The shelves in this house holding somewhere between 2000 and 3000 books bear witness to my curiosity about every real thing in this universe � and many unreal ones too, because I like to keep up with how irrational minds work.
In my childhood and early manhood I was a bog-standard Christian. It was my curiosity which got me researching the origins of that religion and discovering that it had no historical basis. So I stopped being a Christian. (A similar journey made me an atheist.) As a teenager I was fascinated by ghosts and particularly Borley Rectory, supposed to be the Most Haunted House in England. I corresponded with the late Harry Price, famous ghost-hunter and later ghost-faker, who wrote the book of that name. I believed it all. It later years I discovered more, and realised it was all a series of frauds.
ESP used to interest me, so I read about all the objective tests that had been conducted into it and was satisfied that that was all hooey as well. I learned so much that a friend and I were able to develop a mind-reading trick which fooled even the most sophisticated people.. I also persuaded many that I had PK powers and not one of them ever sussed out the trick.
It is that very curiosity which has produced in me an awe and a reverence for the true magnificence of the universe and of life and has given me the confidence to reject as false that which plainly is false. Pompous but true.
Continued�
1. Your idea that I do not care about things outside my personal knowledge, and am not curious, would bring a very loud laugh from my family and friends, who know me as an obsessive about learning new things. The shelves in this house holding somewhere between 2000 and 3000 books bear witness to my curiosity about every real thing in this universe � and many unreal ones too, because I like to keep up with how irrational minds work.
In my childhood and early manhood I was a bog-standard Christian. It was my curiosity which got me researching the origins of that religion and discovering that it had no historical basis. So I stopped being a Christian. (A similar journey made me an atheist.) As a teenager I was fascinated by ghosts and particularly Borley Rectory, supposed to be the Most Haunted House in England. I corresponded with the late Harry Price, famous ghost-hunter and later ghost-faker, who wrote the book of that name. I believed it all. It later years I discovered more, and realised it was all a series of frauds.
ESP used to interest me, so I read about all the objective tests that had been conducted into it and was satisfied that that was all hooey as well. I learned so much that a friend and I were able to develop a mind-reading trick which fooled even the most sophisticated people.. I also persuaded many that I had PK powers and not one of them ever sussed out the trick.
It is that very curiosity which has produced in me an awe and a reverence for the true magnificence of the universe and of life and has given me the confidence to reject as false that which plainly is false. Pompous but true.
Continued�
I am genuinely puzzled as to why you find it odd that I should refer you to The Skeptic�s Dictionary.. At that moment it was an easily accessible objective review of Stevenson�s work. Your Theland/bible analogy shows, I think, that you don�t know what TSD is (or, indeed, what a skeptic is). Whereas the bible comprises superstition and groundless belief the articles in TSD represent an objective, rational analysis of a subject.
A skeptic is not a cynic � a committed non-believer. I am proud to call myself a skeptic but would be insulted if dubbed a cynic. A skeptic will believe anything that there is reason to believe. If the subject is strange and dubious then he wants it analysed to discover the truth. Skeptics do all that work that the proponents of those strange beliefs are too lazy, too indifferent or too incompetent to research for themselves.
Why you should be so cynical (!) about a publication that seeks nothing but the truth really is mystifying. I would have thought you�d be enthusiastic about it. I�m sure that it would resolve one or two of those areas in which, at the moment, you sit on the fence.
3. Your suggestion that I would have been one of those who have closed minds to what might emerge in the future I would put down as a cheapskate crack from anyone else. From you I will assume it was a joke and accept it as such.
In fact, I am never so foolish as to try to predict what amazing things might become part of human knowledge in the years to come. What I do is take claims that are being made at the moment and debunk them when necessary.
If you want to read a fun book try How Mumbo-Jumbo Conquered the World by that sharply humorous and perceptive chap Frances Wheen. An enjoyable debunking read.
I hope msEVP gives me five black marks for this, otherwise I won�t sleep.
A skeptic is not a cynic � a committed non-believer. I am proud to call myself a skeptic but would be insulted if dubbed a cynic. A skeptic will believe anything that there is reason to believe. If the subject is strange and dubious then he wants it analysed to discover the truth. Skeptics do all that work that the proponents of those strange beliefs are too lazy, too indifferent or too incompetent to research for themselves.
Why you should be so cynical (!) about a publication that seeks nothing but the truth really is mystifying. I would have thought you�d be enthusiastic about it. I�m sure that it would resolve one or two of those areas in which, at the moment, you sit on the fence.
3. Your suggestion that I would have been one of those who have closed minds to what might emerge in the future I would put down as a cheapskate crack from anyone else. From you I will assume it was a joke and accept it as such.
In fact, I am never so foolish as to try to predict what amazing things might become part of human knowledge in the years to come. What I do is take claims that are being made at the moment and debunk them when necessary.
If you want to read a fun book try How Mumbo-Jumbo Conquered the World by that sharply humorous and perceptive chap Frances Wheen. An enjoyable debunking read.
I hope msEVP gives me five black marks for this, otherwise I won�t sleep.
Oh, Chakka, how very unchivalrous of you - or not. A backhanded compliment if there ever was one - I think. :o/
Firstly, my apologies for my apparent failure to adequately convey my thoughts, and, of course, for any offence inadvertently caused - but not for your failure to read my post properly. I didn�t say you don�t care about anything outside your personal knowledge. I said, basically, that you refuse point blank to consider the possibility that anything deemed supernatural could exist, which is why your attitude to the subject is more consistent than mine. I have no doubt that you, like me, have a houseful of books, and I also have no doubt that you, like me, have over the years, investigated practically anything open to investigation. That�s clear from the discussions we�ve had in the past. However, when it comes to the so-called paranormal, despite the fact that nothing is proven either way, I don�t think you can deny that you have concluded that it doesn�t exist. Of course there are fraudsters and tricksters - anyone with an iota of common sense will know that - but it doesn�t follow that all reports are fraudulent, and I think it�s a great pity that a man of such obvious intellect appears, automatically, to assume they are.
Let me put a case before you. I�ve outlined on AB one of two of my �peculiar� experiences. Would you say I�m a fraud? At the risk of displaying a modicum of self-assuredness, I believe that you are an astute man, so I don�t think you would. You would probably say I was deluded at the time of those alleged incidents - but I can assure you I most certainly wasn�t - so now we have a dilemma. You know I�m well educated, level headed, honest, straightforward, and not prone to flights of fancy - so where does that leave us? Am I a fraud?
continued
Firstly, my apologies for my apparent failure to adequately convey my thoughts, and, of course, for any offence inadvertently caused - but not for your failure to read my post properly. I didn�t say you don�t care about anything outside your personal knowledge. I said, basically, that you refuse point blank to consider the possibility that anything deemed supernatural could exist, which is why your attitude to the subject is more consistent than mine. I have no doubt that you, like me, have a houseful of books, and I also have no doubt that you, like me, have over the years, investigated practically anything open to investigation. That�s clear from the discussions we�ve had in the past. However, when it comes to the so-called paranormal, despite the fact that nothing is proven either way, I don�t think you can deny that you have concluded that it doesn�t exist. Of course there are fraudsters and tricksters - anyone with an iota of common sense will know that - but it doesn�t follow that all reports are fraudulent, and I think it�s a great pity that a man of such obvious intellect appears, automatically, to assume they are.
Let me put a case before you. I�ve outlined on AB one of two of my �peculiar� experiences. Would you say I�m a fraud? At the risk of displaying a modicum of self-assuredness, I believe that you are an astute man, so I don�t think you would. You would probably say I was deluded at the time of those alleged incidents - but I can assure you I most certainly wasn�t - so now we have a dilemma. You know I�m well educated, level headed, honest, straightforward, and not prone to flights of fancy - so where does that leave us? Am I a fraud?
continued
continued
You�re mistaken. I am acquainted with the Skeptics Dictionary, and for the benefit of this discussion I would say that it describes itself as �A Collection of Strange Beliefs, Amusing Deceptions, and Dangerous Delusions�, which would appear to indicate that it isn�t entirely objective. Furthermore, the OED defines a sceptic as �a person inclined to question or doubt accepted opinions�. In the case of reincarnation, as far as I�m aware, there are no accepted opinions, but since you immediately presented The Skeptics Dictionary to reinforce your opinion, my analogy between that, and Theland�s production of his bible, I thought was pretty accurate.
As you are no doubt aware, I would be the first to debunk anything untoward, and I don�t make any claims where reincarnation is concerned, but I cannot join you in debunking every single report since I know from personal experience that there are things happening in this world that we can�t yet explain - and, therefore, I retain my incessant curiosity.
My thoughts on your hypothetical ancestors, Chakka, were, of course, tongue in cheek - as you so rightly spotted. Methinks you know me too well!!
I�ll get that book - thank you - and despite Tina�s gracious generosity, I hope you sleep well, dear Chakka. :o)
You�re mistaken. I am acquainted with the Skeptics Dictionary, and for the benefit of this discussion I would say that it describes itself as �A Collection of Strange Beliefs, Amusing Deceptions, and Dangerous Delusions�, which would appear to indicate that it isn�t entirely objective. Furthermore, the OED defines a sceptic as �a person inclined to question or doubt accepted opinions�. In the case of reincarnation, as far as I�m aware, there are no accepted opinions, but since you immediately presented The Skeptics Dictionary to reinforce your opinion, my analogy between that, and Theland�s production of his bible, I thought was pretty accurate.
As you are no doubt aware, I would be the first to debunk anything untoward, and I don�t make any claims where reincarnation is concerned, but I cannot join you in debunking every single report since I know from personal experience that there are things happening in this world that we can�t yet explain - and, therefore, I retain my incessant curiosity.
My thoughts on your hypothetical ancestors, Chakka, were, of course, tongue in cheek - as you so rightly spotted. Methinks you know me too well!!
I�ll get that book - thank you - and despite Tina�s gracious generosity, I hope you sleep well, dear Chakka. :o)
It appears that Tina doesn't know what a skeptic (English spelling 'sceptic' ) is either. If you are not objective you cannot be a sceptic. But I think Tina's brain is unreachable to a rational person.
naomi, I have obviously failed, despite enormous effort, to persuade you that I do not dismiss the supernatural/paranormal as a matter of course but only after much effort to find out whether it has any basis.
You are obviously a curious person, as you have said, but you are not curious enough. You pursue a subject so far and are then happy to add it your list of 'keep an open mind items' when there is, in fact, still a long way to go in investigating it. In my experience, with every such supernatural subject that has ever been mooted, intense scrutiny shows it to be baseless. What am I to do then? Believe it anyway? Of course not - I'm a sceptic, a rational objective fellow.
One of these subjects is reincarnation, where every investigation has come to nothing - Stevenson's methods being flawed as I said. (You'll notice, for example, that the children concerned always conveniently 'lose' their previous-life memories by the time they reach an age to be questioned properly.) Remember the Bridie Murphy case?
Persuaded millions but turned out to be dross.
As always, the onus is on those who offer supernatural theories to back them with evidence, not for the likes of me to debunk them. But we can't resist it!
As to your own experiences I'd need to grill you far more intensely than AB allows. What the result would be who can tell? But I certainly wouldn't accuse you of being dishonest or stupid.
naomi, I have obviously failed, despite enormous effort, to persuade you that I do not dismiss the supernatural/paranormal as a matter of course but only after much effort to find out whether it has any basis.
You are obviously a curious person, as you have said, but you are not curious enough. You pursue a subject so far and are then happy to add it your list of 'keep an open mind items' when there is, in fact, still a long way to go in investigating it. In my experience, with every such supernatural subject that has ever been mooted, intense scrutiny shows it to be baseless. What am I to do then? Believe it anyway? Of course not - I'm a sceptic, a rational objective fellow.
One of these subjects is reincarnation, where every investigation has come to nothing - Stevenson's methods being flawed as I said. (You'll notice, for example, that the children concerned always conveniently 'lose' their previous-life memories by the time they reach an age to be questioned properly.) Remember the Bridie Murphy case?
Persuaded millions but turned out to be dross.
As always, the onus is on those who offer supernatural theories to back them with evidence, not for the likes of me to debunk them. But we can't resist it!
As to your own experiences I'd need to grill you far more intensely than AB allows. What the result would be who can tell? But I certainly wouldn't accuse you of being dishonest or stupid.
Good evening Chakka, Yes, since I believe I can honestly say I�ve never detected the merest hint of curiosity from you on the subject, I�m afraid you have failed to convince me that you do not dismiss the supernatural/paranormal as a matter of course. It seems that as much as Tina wants to believe it, you are quite determined not to. For example, you say that every investigation has come to nothing which would suggest that a definite conclusion has been reached, but it hasn�t, because there are still unanswered questions. If there weren�t, we wouldn�t be discussing the subject.
Perhaps it isn�t �convenient� that these children lost their �previous life� memories. How many of us retain very many memories from early childhood? Perhaps young children do easily forget.
You say that in your experience, intense scrutiny shows every supernatural subject to be baseless, and ask if you should believe it anyway. I have to ask why there is no grey area there? I wouldn�t expect for one moment that you would believe it anyway, but if the answers are unresolved, a wise man would surely say �I don�t know�.
You also say that I�m not curious enough, but when a subject is so very elusive, how does one pursue investigations farther than one is able to? Yes, we can investigate claims, but even then, all we can do is either expose any trickery, or if none appears to be involved, eliminate the impossible, and then examine the result. As one of my great heroes said �When you have excluded the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth�.
Perhaps it isn�t �convenient� that these children lost their �previous life� memories. How many of us retain very many memories from early childhood? Perhaps young children do easily forget.
You say that in your experience, intense scrutiny shows every supernatural subject to be baseless, and ask if you should believe it anyway. I have to ask why there is no grey area there? I wouldn�t expect for one moment that you would believe it anyway, but if the answers are unresolved, a wise man would surely say �I don�t know�.
You also say that I�m not curious enough, but when a subject is so very elusive, how does one pursue investigations farther than one is able to? Yes, we can investigate claims, but even then, all we can do is either expose any trickery, or if none appears to be involved, eliminate the impossible, and then examine the result. As one of my great heroes said �When you have excluded the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth�.
Latest Posts
Crosswords0 min ago
Other Sports2 mins ago
ChatterBank3 mins ago
Northern Lights In Southern England
Science6 mins ago
Crosswords8 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.