anyone else's toddler ever spoken about 'past life' experiences??????

[noonar]

now, am not saying (necessarily) that i believe in reincarnation, but i've just had a rather spooky conversation with my 3 yo dd. (just 3)

the gist of it was that she's bored with being 3 and wants to be a teenager again. when i asked her where i was whilst she was busy being a teenager, she said that she had a different mummy then.

the conversation went on, and then she said that she got sick and she died.

as i said earlier, i'm not saying i believe any of this, but it certainly sent a shiver down my spine.

Did you read the case i linked to earlier? She didn't die as a child in her previous life.

Save = have in my pp.

Ah but only children have the ability to see the monsters. We lose that ability as we get older sadly.

Sorry when I said the frequency with which they die as children, I didn't mean that all of them do, sorry for not making that clear.

Don't get me wrong, reincarnation is a cool idea but there is as much evidence for that as there is for every other baseless fantasy that man has created. I think what appeals about reincarnation is that it ties in with the our tendency towards the Just World Hypothesis en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_hypothesis and karma etc.

Would you like to explain how the evidence for monsters under the bed is the same as evidence for reincarnation? It might make it easier to understand the comparison.

Reincarnation does not have to have anything to do with karma - some belief systems equate the two which is why they get lumped together. A belief in reincarnation does not necessarily equate to a belief in karma.

Also, many of the faiths that do have reincarnation as a central tenet see it as something to avoid, not something to look forward to - the goal is to not have to come back to this world of illusion and suffering anymore - Buddhism for example.

The evidence is the same as in it comes down to what someone is saying regardless if wether that someone is 2 or 100. If we use what someone is saying as evidence then the flood gates are open and you would have no grounds to challenge anyone's personal experience of anything. What's your criteria for belief?

Head, as has been pointed out on this thread quite a few times, it isn't just based on what someone has said - sometimes the information given can be verified.

"He also, at the same age, told me knowledgeably that all souls are "recycled" -that babies look down and choose their mummys and daddys, before "swooping down" into the mummy's tummy and waiting to be born." truelymadlydeeply This is exactly the concept presented within the "Journey of Souls" book by Michael Newton

Same with horoscopes, according to statistics at some point somewhere something will match the story given. Do you believe in horoscopes, tarot, Allah, Yahweh, UFO's and so on?

Again, as discussed on the thread, it is not always vague, generic statements that are given but specific information that can be verified with others.

Refer to my previous post.

That's the one I was answering. :)

Statistically it would be more remarkable if there were no examples of something a child uttered being similar to a real life event. It's akin to all the 9/11 conspiracies et al. Now if you're going to ignore the misses and concentrate on the hits you need to start believing in a load of stuff, even stuff people don't tend to believe in anymore such as Zeus.

Not sure how 9/11 conspiracies have come into this. You jump ar

Around a lot :)

Back to the thread - anyone else's children talking about past lives?

It's to do with coincidence, it's a feature or conspiracy theories. Taking two unrelated events and assuming a connection. Which is what is happening with the 'hits' referred to on this thread.

Well you have your opinion and I have mine :)

Back to the thread!

I think a lot of the documented cases clearly demonstrate that we are not talking about the odd coincidence. They demonstrate that some children are coming out with many pieces of very specific information that it is highly unlikely (granted not impossible) that the child or their family could have known, especially in the cases where the two families have no connection and are separated geographically. The information was subsequently verified as correct. It is disingenuous to put it in the same category as someone thinking about someone who then happens to call etc. No-one is claiming this is proof, but i think it is at least interesting and worthy of proper investigation.

Why don't you submit your evidence to to the necessary bodies then mostly?

www.cam.ac.uk/research
www.ox.ac.uk/research/

yep lots of the stories list specific details....

like someone listing the specific lottery numbers that come up...you know not a small number...and a number beginning with 4....but the actual list of six specific numbers in spite of the odds against it being millions to 1.

Doesn't stop it being a coincidence....it doesn't provide evidence for premonition....

So if someone picks a few names and a place name and a mode of death...how unlikely is it that somewhere in the whole world, that combination of names and places and mode of death will have occurred? More or less likely than winning the lottery?

The details can be specific and it still be a coincidence...because the world is big and number of credulous persons large.....

HiH - it is not MY evidence - it is the evidence of 3000+ cases collected by Dr Ian Stevenson. He was not some crackpot - he tried to apply scientific method to his research, not perfectly, but he tried. The evidence is published in many journals and his own books - i'm sure anyone interested in researching this area is already well aware of it.

ICBINEG - i think the odds of winning the lottery are about 14 million to 1. High odds, but nothing to do with coincidence. Nothing to do with premonition.

Of course there is the possibility of coincidence in some of the cases (and yes, i get that there could be 100 verificable facts and it could still be coincidence), as is the possibility of fraud, mistake, amnesia. This research tried to account for these possibilities. Research in this area is always likely to be flawed because of it's nature - how does a researcher get to hear of a case in the first instance, how can they ensure that there is no contact between the old and new families etc etc?

No-one is claiming that any of this evidence is proof, and no-one is trying to make anyone else believe in reincarnation. Stevenson himself:

'Essentially I say that the idea of reincarnation permits but doesn't compel belief. All the cases I've investigated so far have shortcomings. Even taken together, they do not offer anything like proof. But as the body of evidence accumulates, it's more likely that more and more people will see its relevance.'

mostly getting the lottery numbers right is certainly a coincidence.....(maybe just a typo in your post) otherwise I think we agree broadly speaking.

Several of Ian Stevenson's case histories have been looked into and found to be fraud/wishful thinking.

You do know that he didn't interview any of those people himself, don't you? He had to work through an interpreter, and they were almost all in countries where belief in reincarnation in some form is part of the religion.

Why didn't he carry out his research in America?

He says himself not all the cases are reliable as evidence and that some were fraudulent.

He had a whole team of researchers working on the project. Are you criticising his methodology on the basis that he didn't speak every language in south asia?

He did carry out research in north america. He said though that more cases occur in countries where a belief in reincarnation is the norm as the parents were less likely to disregard it. In the west it is not generally something that we are looking for.

I don't want to keep defending Stevenson's work. I have said it is not proof. I have said it is flawed. He believed in some things that i don't think are well supported by the evidence (like the birthmarks). That said, he endeavoured to bring scientific rigour to the research, and the evidence is interesting.

I mentioned him initially because there is very little meaningful reasearch in this area apart from him, and i thought it might be interesting for those whose children have come out with statements about other lives. If anyone wants to read his work they can. If you think it is a load of woo then disregard it.