Children who claim to remember past life

by frankiespeakin 86 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  frankiespeakin

  INQ,

  On your other thread, I challenged the credibility of the account of a 2 year-old boy "recalling" his past life. Kids his age could not possibly speak as eloquently as he did. Were my comments ill-informed? Lacking insight? Did I show a lack of thought? If so, how? If not, why did you not address it?

  What am I supposed to do with such a challege? So you think the kid spoke eloquintly beyound his years, what is it in what you said that needs to be challenged refuted or that takes away from the experienced?

  I don't see it that way if anything it may add credence to the fact that he did have another life and that in that other life he spoke the same language of which he still had recall memory? WHat do I need to refute??
• 

  frankiespeakin

  
  INQ,

  However, it is unwise to:

  1) Immediately hail these accounts as evidence for reincarnation. All you have are kids who can tell you experiences that aren't theirs. What possible hypotheses can one make? Mind-reading? Telepathy? Why must it necessarily be "proof of reincarnation"?

  I think the researchers are clever enough to have way of testing the info. Remember these are children for the most part that have memories that are accurate, and they or thier parents had no info about. I don't think funded research by a university on such a contrvercial subject would want to be so sloppy, so as to be worthless info or something that could bring them public ridicule because the research was done so biasedly.
• 

  frankiespeakin

  INQ,

  2) Attack people who challenge the research. Scientific claims are always challenged by the skeptics. A good, solid theory MUST be able to survive the critrics. The opposite is true with religious claims. People are expected to have faith that religious phenomena occurred. So which approach would you prefer us to take with this research into past life? Scientific skepticism or blind faith?

  Attack?WHo Is attacking?I think the info I presented is done in a very scientific matter, and can not be labeled as an attack except be the extremely sensitive. The emperical data of course is not material because they are imaterial thoughts. But the evidence lends itself to what mysstic and sages have been telling us for thousands of years. The objectioins raised so far have failed to show that they have even read the material posted and automatically assumes that the researchers have been tricked, and then automatically reject the fact that that these children and parents have no knowledge of the previous family assuming they must have and that the parents or researchers have tainted the study by cheating in some way so as to vindicate there theories.
• 

  frankiespeakin

  INQ,

  So you see why I didn't spend time refuting your reasoning because if you read carefully what i posted, you raised objection that showed you automatically assumed deciet of some sort by a credited study that is being conducted by a university. How can you refute someone that don't know what the story is? WHy refute it, if the person automatically disreguards what the research is bringing to light?
• 

  frankiespeakin

  Kid,

  Could you pleace give the link to where you cut&pasted from. It is hard to check out the surronding material. I try to alway give a link when I cut and paste to be fair and show where I got the material.
• 

  Inquisitor

  Frankie

  What am I supposed to do with such a challege? So you think the kid spoke eloquintly beyound his years, what is it in what you said that needs to be challenged refuted or that takes away from the experienced?

  You have obviously not bothered to read the earlier post I refer to, and that is why you did not realize that i was being a tad sarcastic. A 2 year-old boy you said had had a previous-life experience could NEVER have said what he did. 2-year olds do not have such mastery of their language at that age. He would not be able to string together sentences like "The wagon hit me. I was dead and I was angry with the man who drove the wagon." Click on the above hyperlink to read why. Conclusion: the 2 year old's testimony is fake.

  You whine that

  The objectioins raised so far have failed to show that they have even read the material posted

  and yet, by your own posts you show that you're ignorant of what others have posted on your thread. You hear objections but not constructive criticisms.

  INQ
• 

  frankiespeakin

  Nark,

  Here the central, yet unquestioned and unexplained concept, instead of "God," is "individual". Presumably "human individual". What is an individual? How can it be said to be different from, or the same as, another? What is new and original to a given individual, what is old and inherited? The only "thing" which appears to be new and original is not really some-"thing" but a particular combination of existing "things" (matter and genes and language and mind structures... and stories). Just as all faces in the world are different combinations of the same elements. And that -- which is no-"thing" -- we call "I".

  Yes I agree the Individual is just a mental contruct just as space and time. Every thing is an illusion of the mind anyway (colors, solids etc...).
• 

  Inquisitor

  So you see why I didn't spend time refuting your reasoning because if you read carefully what i posted, you raised objection that showed you automatically assumed deciet of some sort by a credited study that is being conducted by a university. How can you refute someone that don't know what the story is? WHy refute it, if the person automatically disreguards what the research is bringing to light?

  That is very convenient for you, Frankie. I HAVE READ CAREFULLY what you posted. If I hadn't, I wouldn't be so determined to object. I have raised this before and I will raise this again. There are credited studies to show that greenhouse gases are not seriously damaging the atmosphere or that homosexuality is acquired behaviour etc. There is a credited study out there to appeal to the right kinda public. If all these studies are to be taken seriously and without question, what do you do when there are studies that contradict one another? Who is right? Do we go by the Size of the professor's title or the Size of the campus of which he represents? The research must prove itself credible to its critics. NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND. Ask any researcher, Frankie. Basic scientific method. <rolls eyes> Let me also add, that I would be very happy to accept that Dr. Stevenson's research has discovered a most unusual phenomenon for I am a curious person. But to tell people that they are wrong for being skeptical towards the findings is unreasonable. Even more far-fetch is your claim that the findings VALIDATES REINCARNATION. INQ
• 

  frankiespeakin

  INQ,

  A 2 year-old boy you said had had ;a previous-life ;experience could NEVER have said what he did. 2-year olds do not have such mastery of their language at that age. He would not be able to string together sentences like "The wagon hit me. I was dead and I was angry with the man who drove the wagon."

  Your kidding thier have been child prodigies, that could speak clearly at 2, why do you consider this to be impossible? By automatically assumming deciet just because it is something your not familar with you disreguard a reputable study.

  ff
• 

  Inquisitor

  Frankie
  

  Again you fail to click on the link to read what I had earlier said. Is the hyperlink not showing on your computer? That's ok. I'll do it the traditional way.
  http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/115727/2.ashx Kindly read the last post in that page.
  

  I DID NOT say that 2 year olds cannot speak clearly. I said they cannot speak as eloquently as you have claimed.
  

  A 2 year-old would say things like "Water", "Dog"... then later "Daddy pants", "Bad boy".
  

  He wouldn't string sentences as masterfully as you have claimed, spouting "‘The wagon hit me. I was dead and I was angry with the man who drove the wagon." So your narrative is false.
  

  Speaking clearly at 2 years of age doesn't make one a prodigy (although that's probably what your folks told you).
  

  But speaking long sentences with conjunctions in BOTH active and passive voices does make your 2 year old child a GENIUS.
  

  INQ