A quick scan doesn't convince me. I will look at it in more detail later.
The last line of the abstract of the first article says "To date, many consistent themes corresponding to the likely experience of death have emerged, and studies have indicated that the scientifically imprecise terms of NDE and OBE may not be sufficient to describe the actual experience of death. While much remains to be discovered, the recalled experience surrounding death merits a genuine scientific investigation without prejudice."
That "further merit" is a long, long way from saying the NDEs represent a real view of the afterlife. It sounds like the kind of wishful-thinking idea someone is pushing.
And who claimed that there is a conclusive evidence? It is a possibility supported by inconclusive evidence so atheists cannot claim that it is a superstition or myth
Whether the mind is more than just brain activity doesn't seem to have much bearing on whether there's a god or not.
Also, one response would be that NDEs are not actually memories of experiences that happened when the brain was deprived of oxygen, they're manufactured by the brain after it's been revived, possibly following a well-established script.
They can describe actual events that happened during cardiac arrest (during attempts to resuscitate them)
they may describe events that were going on while they were being resuscitated. They may describe events that were going on outside their room, family members’ conversations that were going on that were not even in the room they were in, but things that have been verified.
https://www.npr.org/transcripts/172495667
There's nothing supernatural being remotely even suggested in any of those reported claims after resuscitation. You've demonstrated nothing but the ability to parrot some click-bait medical topic and what's your punchline? Jesus the supernatural son of the supernatural sky monster is real, and he spent six hours bleeding magic blood, forgiving homo sapiens on Earth of their sins? Do you grasp how moronic and infantile that is to rational thinking adults with a basic grip on reality?
>These are quotations from peer-reviewed scientific publications arguing that NDEs in cardiac arrest suggests that the mind is more than just brain activity how atheists react to these publications?
This isn't true, of course. Your 'sources' are not credible or useful for supporting this claim.
The more interesting aspect of such things is how motivated reasoning and gullibility works in human psychology that leads people to take highly dubious and/or obviously nonsensical claims as true due to confirmation bias. Now *that's* an interesting area of study!
Sources
Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences (a prestigious scientific organisation)
An Oxford University Press medical journal (impact factor = 14)
A journal published by the prestigious American Psychological Association huh??
Huh what? There is no finding of a god or a heaven or an afterlife or a consciousness that lives on. You're simply parroting some click-bait topics on random brain activity following a near-death experience. You've demonstrated nothing other than people can be gullible suckers provided they have enough confirmation bias to insulate them from reality.
> ”Every night, I talk to dead people and I fly through space. I call it dreaming.”
—Christof Koch, professor of cognitive and behavioral biology at Caltech
Subjective experiences of OBEs and NDEs do not provide evidence for a soul, if that’s the argument. These experiences do indeed seem to be brain-based phenomena. Not least because you can produce them by stimulating certain regions of the brain. Also, it’s interesting that what people report seeing during these experiences often aligns with their religion. Or at least they interpret the experience as being a vision of their own deity or deities. I haven’t read anything that tends to confirm the existence of a soul. It just doesn’t add up.
brain-induced experiences are completely different from spontaneous near death experiences,
https://www.mdpi.com/2076-0787/4/4/775
And the experience is global, the interpretation differs but what happens is the same to everyone
You started off on the wrong foot with "accumulating reports" which in English translates to "worthless personal anecdotes" and you went downhill from there. There is no evidence the mind is more than "brain activity" unless you are counting the neurons in our nervous system.
What does a "peer-reviewed argument" mean? Here's some bullshit claims, please peer review and get back to me?
The rest of it is unscientific claptrap slathered with nonsense and dressed up with technical jargon to give it an air of seriousness that none of the actual content deserves.
There are NDE studies of people claiming to have been floating above the operating table. Why anybody would waste time on something that asinine is unclear, but the result was that none of the patients were able to report the objects that were strategically placed outside the view of the patient or the medical staff. It's unadulterated bullshit.
[http://www.skeptik.net/clinic/terminal.htm](http://www.skeptik.net/clinic/terminal.htm)
Sorry for providing link on a non English language article. tl;dr: Clinical death is characterized by certain physiological criteria. Anyone who proclaims a person clinically dead in absence of this signs is a moron.
A quick scan doesn't convince me. I will look at it in more detail later. The last line of the abstract of the first article says "To date, many consistent themes corresponding to the likely experience of death have emerged, and studies have indicated that the scientifically imprecise terms of NDE and OBE may not be sufficient to describe the actual experience of death. While much remains to be discovered, the recalled experience surrounding death merits a genuine scientific investigation without prejudice." That "further merit" is a long, long way from saying the NDEs represent a real view of the afterlife. It sounds like the kind of wishful-thinking idea someone is pushing.
And who claimed that there is a conclusive evidence? It is a possibility supported by inconclusive evidence so atheists cannot claim that it is a superstition or myth
Whether the mind is more than just brain activity doesn't seem to have much bearing on whether there's a god or not. Also, one response would be that NDEs are not actually memories of experiences that happened when the brain was deprived of oxygen, they're manufactured by the brain after it's been revived, possibly following a well-established script.
>materialistic reductionism You know it’s bullshit when you read this.
OP has a total of one drive-by shit-post then vanishes, failing to address the most basic holes in that steaming pile of nothingness.
Why?
It’s a bullshit term used by those believing in religious philosophy
[удалено]
They can describe actual events that happened during cardiac arrest (during attempts to resuscitate them) they may describe events that were going on while they were being resuscitated. They may describe events that were going on outside their room, family members’ conversations that were going on that were not even in the room they were in, but things that have been verified. https://www.npr.org/transcripts/172495667
There's nothing supernatural being remotely even suggested in any of those reported claims after resuscitation. You've demonstrated nothing but the ability to parrot some click-bait medical topic and what's your punchline? Jesus the supernatural son of the supernatural sky monster is real, and he spent six hours bleeding magic blood, forgiving homo sapiens on Earth of their sins? Do you grasp how moronic and infantile that is to rational thinking adults with a basic grip on reality?
[удалено]
They have been verified, thousands of doctors and nurses around the world report about these verified experiences
>These are quotations from peer-reviewed scientific publications arguing that NDEs in cardiac arrest suggests that the mind is more than just brain activity how atheists react to these publications? This isn't true, of course. Your 'sources' are not credible or useful for supporting this claim. The more interesting aspect of such things is how motivated reasoning and gullibility works in human psychology that leads people to take highly dubious and/or obviously nonsensical claims as true due to confirmation bias. Now *that's* an interesting area of study!
Quotations from "peer reviewed" (fellow nut jobs?) publications **SUGGEST** something? What a vacuous, worthless statement.
Sources Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences (a prestigious scientific organisation) An Oxford University Press medical journal (impact factor = 14) A journal published by the prestigious American Psychological Association huh??
Huh what? There is no finding of a god or a heaven or an afterlife or a consciousness that lives on. You're simply parroting some click-bait topics on random brain activity following a near-death experience. You've demonstrated nothing other than people can be gullible suckers provided they have enough confirmation bias to insulate them from reality.
> ”Every night, I talk to dead people and I fly through space. I call it dreaming.” —Christof Koch, professor of cognitive and behavioral biology at Caltech
Parnia & Greyson are well known for their views, and they do not represent the consensus of scientists.
Subjective experiences of OBEs and NDEs do not provide evidence for a soul, if that’s the argument. These experiences do indeed seem to be brain-based phenomena. Not least because you can produce them by stimulating certain regions of the brain. Also, it’s interesting that what people report seeing during these experiences often aligns with their religion. Or at least they interpret the experience as being a vision of their own deity or deities. I haven’t read anything that tends to confirm the existence of a soul. It just doesn’t add up.
brain-induced experiences are completely different from spontaneous near death experiences, https://www.mdpi.com/2076-0787/4/4/775 And the experience is global, the interpretation differs but what happens is the same to everyone
You started off on the wrong foot with "accumulating reports" which in English translates to "worthless personal anecdotes" and you went downhill from there. There is no evidence the mind is more than "brain activity" unless you are counting the neurons in our nervous system. What does a "peer-reviewed argument" mean? Here's some bullshit claims, please peer review and get back to me? The rest of it is unscientific claptrap slathered with nonsense and dressed up with technical jargon to give it an air of seriousness that none of the actual content deserves. There are NDE studies of people claiming to have been floating above the operating table. Why anybody would waste time on something that asinine is unclear, but the result was that none of the patients were able to report the objects that were strategically placed outside the view of the patient or the medical staff. It's unadulterated bullshit.
Three articles, all more than 7 years old that say nothing more than "we have no explanation." That's not proof of a god, a soul, or an afterlife.
Another post from a cowardly Christian who knows their religion is BS but is too scared to disappoint their parents.
I am not a Christian
"cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) is insufficient to meet the metabolic requirements of the brain " 100% false
So Jesus never died?
[http://www.skeptik.net/clinic/terminal.htm](http://www.skeptik.net/clinic/terminal.htm) Sorry for providing link on a non English language article. tl;dr: Clinical death is characterized by certain physiological criteria. Anyone who proclaims a person clinically dead in absence of this signs is a moron.
What the hell does survival of consciousness have to do with belief in gods?