@InLogicWeTrust Nice one troll.

You might notice that atheists will not accept real evidence that threatens their beliefs, just like Christians!

Are you a scientist? Do you really understand how science works? Anyone who looks at the "work" being done at UVA's DOPS and uses it to conclude that a "soul" exists doesn't understand "science" n the least! Here's what we can reliably conclude from the DOPS work. 1. Some parents report odd behavior of young children. 2. Some young children behave oddly. 3. One explanation for the odd behavior would be "reincarnation". 4. There are other and simpler explanations. It is very easy to induce memories in young children (and adults), even unintentionally. 5. None of the DOPS "research" is performed in a scientific manner of "hypothesis - experiment - measurement - analysis" - "experiment" and so on. 6. The best we can conclude is that DOPS has made some observations that are interesting and possibly worth investigating but the conclusion that a "soul" exists is not warranted. For example, maybe a dead person's "memories" float around somewhere in the electromagnetic spectrum and certain young brains "pick them up". It is also possible that there is only one consciousness in the universe and each person is simply a manifestation of that consciousness. In this case, some children may not have yet fully individuated. This wouldn't require that there is a soul OR reincarnation because death itself could be an illusion. There is the hypothesis that the entire universe is a computer simulation. In this case, there could be a bug in the code in the computer running the simulation. .There are probably thousands of possible explanations.. none of which are yet supported by any solid scientific evidence. Hence we cannot conclude ANYTHING about the cause of the observations made at DOPS. To do so would be no more valid that the ancient peoples who looked up at the night sky and imagined that the stars were gods.

Of course, anyone who claims that there is NO possibility that a supernatural being exists, or that reincarnations exists, is also taking a metaphysical, not scientific, position.

I am trained as a scientist, and if you read the reports carefully there are only two possibilities:
(1) Complete and utter Bernie Madoff style fraud.
(2) The small children remember details from past lives that no one else could possibly have communicated to them.

It is my opinion that Atheists like Christians are fixed in their certainty, and employ elaborate rationalizations to avoid considering any evidence that threatens that certainty. I'm an agnostic and I don't know the truth. I just look at and evaluate evidence. And the evidence to me is strong that we have a soul that at least in some circumstances survives death.

@InLogicWeTrust That does not answer anything.

@InLogicWeTrust people just believe in this or that, and at the same time they have no clue to what they saying. That is sad.

@InLogicWeTrust What you told me is obvious. So what is your point? Every question is a great question if we do not understand the answer yet.

@InLogicWeTrust What is it that let us know how to cure cancer. What you said is partly true, but we need to know what is the cause behind it.

@InLogicWeTrust When I put an effort into finding answers, I would more likely to find it, the chance and the rate would go higher. The wishing would not do me any good. We as a human being can help each other to put more effort in trying to find answers instead of just wishing.

@InLogicWeTrust When I asked you questions, that does not mean I do not know the answer, but to see if you even know what you are talking about? A lot of people just believe in things blindly and have very little clue or idea of what they are saying.

A theory without evidence is a hypothesis.

@MikeInMaine Even it is a hypothesis, it needed to be fact base. The fact base would be the evidence for theory or hypothesis.

@InLogicWeTrust Swing and a miss. (experiential learning?) sounds like code for "woo woo science" Unless you can demonstrate testable, (repeatable and verifiable / falsifiable) you are not in the whelm of science. The context you are asserting your "logical/scientific side has not eliminated any possibilities from my experiences" is to admit you are not subscribing to a logical/scientific rubric that requires testable, verifiable, evidence.

Again, you really should be honest and update your user name as suggested above.

Years ago I had a first hand supernatural experience where I was visited by a recently deceased and much beloved grandmother's. A day later while loading photographic film onto a real to develop the negative, I wondered if I could again see her luminescent image and feel her presence. The room was quickly filled with light and I again first hand experienced of her spirit as I saw her glow and felt the warmth of her spirit. Fortunately, This was also an accidental science experiment as the film I was loading (completely out of the canister) would have been ruined if the amount of lumens I imagined were real, the film would have been at the very least severely fogged. The film was perfect and I was able to demonstrate that my supernatural experience was unique to me (imagination) It only took a few seconds to realized that my perception of the supernatural was not representative of reality. I have several other stories that I first hand witnessed false (memories) of others (in a group think scenerio) demonstrating the same level of believing in the imaginary and displaying a similar separation from reality.

@Bierbasstard I had that experience in reverse. When I was in my 40s. Long story but I sensed a friend with me and when I called to tell him he described thinhs around me.we were online friends and never saw my place. Happened multiple times