But regarding the research, if past lives exist - then why is there no concept of it in some of the world's religions - like Christianity or Islam? This fact alone seems quite strange - I mean if people remembered past lives across the entire globe, then I would expect all cultures to have the idea. — Agustino

That was always noted by the researches on the subject. Ian Stevenson once remarked that in India and China, people thought it was silly to research the subject because everyone knew it happened all the time, whereas in the West, people thought it was silly to research the subject because everyone knew it was a myth.

In ancient times, Plato and the Pythagoreans certainly accepted what they called 'metempsychosis' (strange word), and there were hints of the idea in Origen. But he was anathematized for the 'monstrous belief in the pre-existence of souls' and after that, the idea was taboo in the Western church. However underground movements, like the Cathars, continued to accept it.

Have a look at this blog post.

Morphic resonance is one version of explaining memory and habits in the Universe. If I'm not mistaken, Sheldrake does credit Bergson with inspiring his ideas concerning morphic resonance. — Rich

I was going to mention morphic resonance.

In ancient times, Plato and the Pythagoreans certainly accepted what they called 'metempsychosis' (strange word), and there were hints of the idea in Origen. But he was anathematized for the 'monstrous belief in the pre-existence of souls' and after that, the idea was taboo in the Western church. However underground movements, like the Cathars, continued to accept it. — Wayfarer

Still there is no concept of it for probably more than half of the world's population - Muslims + Christians. That is a serious problem for any sort of belief in reincarnation. And consider that there was no notion of it for a very long time. I don't care about tiny segments of Christianity or Islam - they are of no import when analysing the large-scale trends.

I've read the article, it's more or less of what I've read before. Again it doesn't convince me for the simple reason that there are serious difficulties with it that no one is ready to tackle - such as for example the one that I mentioned.

Empirical claims are not provable. Period. So nothing to worry about there. Whatever it is, if it's an empirical claim, it's not provable. There's no reason to even concern ourselves with this issue, because we know that empirical claims are not provable. — Terrapin Station

If something is provable then why claim it or believe in it at all?

If something is provable then why claim it or believe in it at all? — intrapersona

Isn't provable you mean? Whether you want to or not, you're going to believe some empirical claims, despite the fact that empirical claims are not provable. Of course, realizing that they're not provable, many people wouldn't worry about that in the slightest. They'd not at all make whether an empirical claim is provable a criterion for belief.

There is nothing wrong with it, and it is actually 'prudent' (from a survival standpoint) to assume that there is no afterlife - meaning it is something that we have to achieve on our own (the prudent course of action).

I say 'prudent' because if we 'believe' that there is already an afterlife, and there isn't, then we are signing our own death warrant.

Now here is further thought for you - consider 'us', who are most likely fated to 'die' (with no afterlife), and then consider future consciousness that have 'defeated death' (perhaps they discovered that the sun's radiation was the cause, and moving away from such radiation sources was the answer).

Now they will have no need of an 'after' life, since they are not guaranteed to die (but they will have to perpetually be on guard against unforeseen threats), but we are already dead, dying hoping for an afterlife. Now, if we worked toward securing higher consciousness in a harsh and deadly universe, and it was secured, then it is possible that a future, more advance higher consciousness will be able to 'recreate us' - giving us 'new hope' for an 'afterlife' - but on a practical, technological plane, and not a purely make-believe one given to us by primitive minds who knew no better - not having the vast amount of verified knowledge that we now have (but which is largely ignored).

We all know no belief system is ever air tight in all respects, so what is wrong with the atheist's perspective that there is no afterlife? How could it be false in a materialist sense? — intrapersona

To believe that there is no afterlife, as a failure of thinking, is equal in all respects to the belief that there is an afterlife. Both possess a certainty that is unwarranted.

To say that there is no afterlife is to put all your faith and trust in so-called materialistic philosophy. This is dangerous because it ignores ignorance. After all how much do we really know, stuck on a rock in a nondescript solar system floating around in an average galaxy in the vastness of space?

To say that there is an afterlife is to exaggerate on a mere possibility that there could be one; to blow things out of proportion; to take a possibility and turn it into a shaky truth/fact. If such a belief evidences anything it is our fear of the unknown and annihilation.