Ely, thanks for stating clearly that you wanted to see what others thought, both pro and con in this thread. That's how at least I had read you. Why is it always the credulists who say that they don't want to hear any more arguments from the other side? I haven't yet read such an argumentation from sceptics in these threads.

BigDaddy, I assume for a moment that your first two questions were meant serious and you are waiting for a response. My response to both questions is, no, I wouldn't. For the very same reasons for which I do not write anything in the healing threads nor do comment upon statements of (mostly Christian) faith by Mudcatters. I have a high respect for these and other faiths and I'd never even discuss them unless explicitly invited. If anybody says "I believe in God" ,or "I believe, for Jesus has saved my life", or "I believe in God, for he has created the world and holds us all in his arms", I'd listen with respect and silence. If, however, I'd hear "I believe in God, for I have witnessed the wonders in Lourdes" or "I believe in God, since studies have shown that those who are prayed for even if they don't know about the prayers are healed faster", I'd feel free to comment upon weaknesses of these studies or upon alternative explanation for medical wonders. What's the difference? I do not attack the faith here, I attack one argument or one reason given for a faith. And since all faiths (similar to political convictions) are based upon a whole bundle of arguments and feelings, even the total destroying of a single argument would (and should, I add) never weaken a basic faith. Even if I happen to have the same conviction as another person I still can attack a particular argument she offers for that conviction. I consider it sloppy thinking not to see this difference. Imagine for a moment I could convince you that all past life memories are inventions (and Ferrara has pointed out correctly that the proof that there are false memories generated under hypnosis is not a proof that all memories generated this way are imaginations), would that mean you have to stop believing in reincarnation? Not at all. We all could as well be reincarnations of previous lives but without memories of them. My aim is just that alternative interpretations for experiences get a hearing as well, that's how I understand open-mindedness.

If I had tried to attack reincarnation more directly and not just arguments for it I would have made it this way: (warning; believers in reincarnation might find the next paragraph offending and may want to skip it) The death age distribution in remembered past lives is all wrong. We know fairly well at which ages the people died in past centuries. E.g., up to one third of them before the second birthday. The death age distributions in remembered past lives do not match the real distributions. The distributions of professions is all wrong (not enough peasants and farmers; but too many maids; too many persons close to known persons); it doesn't match the actual distribution of professions in the respective times, but it is a fairly close match to the distribution of professions in today's fictional literature about past ages. Too many people today were in former lives the queen of Sheba or some other known person (but perhaps souls can split in later lives). There are fairly good guesses as to the total number of humans that have lived altogether on earth and that live today. In combination with the average amount of previous reincarnations reported or postulated per person living today, the mathematical fit of the relevant numbers is close to impossible (unless, of course, you allow for soul splitting again; or, that only those believing in reincarnation are reincarnations). end of offending paragraph

Ebbie, what you write about my motives for my posts when you say I would suggest that you start your own thread titled something like 'Debunking All Views Counter to Mine' is offending and mean.

Ferrara, I guess you mean Ian Stevenson (not: Stephensen; sorry for correcting the spelling, but he'll be easier to find this way). He definitely should not passed over when it comes to xenoglossy or reincarnation. I can't locate the title you have given, but in his book 'Children who remember previous lives' the same few cases are reported. Who wants to read a much shorter version could look into the Proceedings of the American Society for Psychical Research, 1974, 31, for his review of xenoglossy. But who wants to have a more complete picture might also want to read why critics have been far from convinced by Stevenson's data: S.G. Thomason, in: American Speech, 1984, 59, 340-359 Wilson, Mind out of time, Doubleday, 1981

Wolfgang