Would this be decent evidence for reincarnation?

[Zone]

This isn't evidence of anything yet, though, is it? It's evidence of maybe 'something', but reading through all of your posts, that 'something' seems to be reincarnation.

Reincarnation would be a good explanation for it. There could some other reason for it we haven't thought of like some kind of quantum entanglement thingie or two consciousness managed to transfer memories across time somehow. But Occams Razor things don't have to be complicated than they need to be.

This is the crux of the debate, and also what I'm trying to get through to you about. There is just as much evidence for reincarnation as there is for 'me' being everyone in the world; nothing.

At best you could be part of some kind of collective overmind which includes everyone/everything in the world. I suppose reincarnation would fit into that quite well as all the conscious energy or whatever it is would remain as long as there is life on the planet. Or perhaps life exists in the first place because of this energy combined with ideal physical conditions. Call it the Gaia Field Matrix or something like that. You can use your imagination a little bit seeing as anything at all is possible. Once you develop a set belief though you're going to tend to reject evidence that may not fit with it and I think most scientists and atheists are doing this.

No, it isn't. How many times does one have to say this to you?

You can state your opinion as many times as you like you have to back it up with some kind of reasoning beyond the fact that you don't like the idea. Atheists are keen to point out to theists that the universe doesn't care about what you like.

You're putting the cart before the horse. There is no evidence of reincarnation. Nothing. Nada. Zero.

Why do accurate past life memories of young not count as evidence? They may not count as definitive proof as there may be some other reason for it. It should be something interesting whatever it is. Well worth some serious research.

There could be evidence of 'something' (yet to be pursuaded), but that is NOT evidence of reincarnation.

I agree, but what else do have in mind that's a better explanation for memories of a different life in the past?

It appears, from our short exchange, that the only thing this supports is your own belief in wanting it to be true.

Why would I want it to be true? I'm not particularly eager to be born as someone else as happy enough the way I am. I think it would be good for young babies and people like that who die very prematurely as then you can just circulate them over. It's still a big loss for their parents either way though I don't think it automatically makes everything better.

This is un-scientific, and reveals why we are skeptical.

I think you're being unscientific because what you have is a belief and you're accepting and rejecting evidence based on this rather than being objective.

See above. There is no evidence for reincarnation.

There is evidence for something and reincarnation would be a good explanation for what we observe. That's what we have here.

You are believing something without any foundation for it to be true.

I think you're doing that yourself. I think this is a problem atheists tend to have.

Not all the variables are accounted for. In fact, as you would surely agree, not even all the variables are known.

That's why it's worth taking seriously as evidence so it can be more thoroughly researched.

It's still not even proven that there is anything to research!.

But there is.

*points at video*

There look. There are other like that one and they aren't being recorded.

Claims of causation and/or correlation does not equate to the same! This is logical and skeptical inquiry 101. Presumption of the conclusion based on incomplete/un-verified data leads to sloppy science and discounted claims.

I agree with this entirely 100%. You don't assume anything to begin with, this includes assuming that consciousness is an epiphenomenon of the brain we don't know that's true.

FALSE.

I have nothing further to say other than to reiterate the above. There is no evidence of anything.

But there is statically significant evidence *points to video* there has to be an explanation for this phenomenon. Reincarnation is a perfectly good one if you can rule out any motivation or capability of a hoax. This is why young children who aren't good at lying or acting are ideal.

Irrelevent.

If there is something to be found, it will be found. I completely understand why people think those who believe in reincarnation are loons do so. The author of the book your cited has respectibility and academic integrity precisely because he does not draw a conclusion from the incomplete evidence to which he is researching in.

Of the possibilities reincarnation is at the top of the list if you rule out any trickery. There's no real problem with the concept it would just mean there's quite a lot more we don't know than we knew we didn't know.

In fact, reading from the book reviews, he discounts a lot of what he investigates as derviatives of coincidence. He doesn't claim that reincarnation is true (that I can read), and if he did, then I would also have to dismiss him too based on the principle of standard scientific investigation and the collation and dismissal of unverifyable evidence.

You can't say reincarnation is true as a fact I'm not even saying that. I think it will be best explanation we currently have for it if it not a hoax which I don't think it is. Historically this is something that has happened throughout the world in all cultures so that's significant.

Assertion. No evidence.

If something is statistically much higher than chance then chance is unlikely to account for it.

Which may be true, whatever 'it' is, even if 'it' exists (which, do I have to remind you, IS NO PROVEN!). Still not evidence for reincarnation.

Instances of young children accurately recounting details of someones life who died in the past "exist" so I'm not sure what you mean. Reincarnation would be the simplest explanation even if it could be something else.

It could be lies.

We can be fairly sure it isn't given the nature of the evidence and the sources. These are very young children not adults. They may lie about whether they ate all the cake or something but a mass conspiracy is going to be beyond them.

Irrelevent.

Bares no relevence as to whether reincarnation is true, or whether there is even a phenoenon worth researching into.

There is a phenomenon certainly and it will be evidence for something. But simple explanations are often the best ones.

SEE: Above. No evidence, just assertion of what is true.

Are you sure you're making any assertions yourself? It seems to me like you're just against the idea in principal and would be happier if there was no evidence for it.

I don't know of a better explanation because I have no reason to believe that any of your assertions are true. But I can think of an infinite number of other explanations as to what is occuring if we take it as given that there is something going on at all.

Yes but which is the easiest/most simple explanation for memories of a different lifetime in the past? You don't have to make anything more complicated then it has to be.

All equally sound as reincarnation based on the fact that there is no evidence for reincarnation.

The past life memories of young children is the evidence being used here. This is evidence that is falsifiable in that you can test their claims to see if it fits with actual details of real people and places.

So here we see the first casual reference to a bias against the contexst to which you are basing your claims.

There shouldn't be any kind of bias at all if there is no belief or faith involved. In science there shouldn't be any though I think some kind of a metaphysical belief has implanted itself in there. I understand the motivation for it but it ought to go so we can be free to look into anything of interest that could come along.

And the context of your claims is that paranormal/supernatural occurances have NEVER once been found to be true or accurate. Not once. Everything that was once thought to be magic has turned out to be not magic, to quote Tim Minchin.

There's no reason reincarnation has to be magic either perhaps it's a natural process/energy but a part of nature we don't understand so would seem like magic to us. Anything at all is possible.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

The evidence statistically extraordinary given the success rate of accurate predictions made by children. But it's difficult to say what is extraordinary once you move into territory you're not familiar with.

You need to provide this in order to disprove our skepticism.

I think you may have a strong personal belief or conviction concerning the nature of reality/life/consciousness than skepticism. One that would exclude something such as reincarnation from even being viable.

I at least am a pragmatist. If evidence turned up to support your claim, I would consider it.

*points back to the evidence*

Are you trying to blank it out?

So far I have read nothing, so your claims are easily dismissed.

I've given a few logical arguments based on some evidence but no definitive claims. I'm open minded on this one.

Now I realise that you are inferring there could be something else 'physical' or material at play that we don't know of. This could be true. But it's not the same as equating this unknown to what you refer to as reincarnation. That is a step out of the bounds of logic and into the realm of guess work, belief, and faith.

It can be something else but unless there is a compelling reason why it couldn't be reincarnation I would consider it the most likely given that it is a straightforward explanation. I don't have any beliefs that would prevent it.