Quote from: popcorn1 on September 25, 2015, 03:52:43 AM

Quote from: 1aguar on September 25, 2015, 03:08:45 AM

Yes, I did present 52 points of evidence for your evaluation; where is your rational response?
www.near-death.com/evidence.html
You don't even realize your stories are contradicted by facts because you never investigated the evidence in the first place.

I have told you about the 52 points ...as i told you before its your brains way of making you feel comfortable before you die..like when you have a bad accident you don.t feel pain till 10 to 15 mins after
what more do you want me to say..

I want you to stop making up stories that equate an untested and hypothetical explanation with a theory based on empirical data.

Fact is that there is hard data supporting the idea that brain chemistry cannot explain this phenomena, and you did not read it, so now I have to quote it for you; for example, "Several people who have been totally blind since birth have reported highly visual NDEs. This is medically unexplainable." There are eight other lines of evidence supporting the idea that brain chemistry cannot explain this phenomena:
http://www.near-death.com/science/evidence.html#a32

Like I said, your explanation is totally hypothetical and has not been proven scientifically; moreover, "Even if NDE elements can be reduced to only a series of brain reactions, this does not negate the idea that NDEs are more than a brain thing":
http://www.near-death.com/science/evidence.html#a34

Quote from: http://www.near-death.com/science/evidence.html#a35

Many skeptical arguments against the survival theory are actually arguments from pseudo-skeptics who often think they have no burden of proof. Such arguments are often based on scientism with assumptions that survival is impossible even though survival has not been ruled out. Faulty conclusions are often made such as, "Because NDEs have a brain chemical connection then survival is impossible." Pseudo-skeptical arguments are sometimes made that do not consider the entire body of circumstantial evidence supporting the possibility of survival or do not consider the possibility of new paradigms. Such pseudo-skeptical claims are often made without any scientific evidence.

Quote from: popcorn1 on September 25, 2015, 03:52:43 AM

even the test in your 52 points the pilots said in the test they felt comfortable ..
So what is so hard to understand..

Where is the scientific proof that relates feeling comfortable and the brain producing a last wonderful Grand Finale vision (or "illusion") at the time of death? Moreover, how can the elements of veridical perception in NDE be explained under this paradigm? Are you not ignoring the fact that there is no medical explanation for these NDEs? Please review points 32, 34, 35 in detail.

Quote from: popcorn1 on September 25, 2015, 03:52:43 AM

ITS CALLED AN IMAGINATION ALL BRAINS CAN DO THIS...

Once again you are caught equating an untested and hypothetical explanation with a theory based on empirical data. Here is the data which contradicts your assertion:
In a study in PLOS ONE, they found that "not only were the NDEs not similar to the memories of imagined events, but the phenomenological characteristics inherent to the memories of real events (e.g. memories of sensorial details) are even more numerous in the memories of NDE than in the memories of real events."
http://www.near-death.com/science/evidence.html#a52

OK, so this is more than sufficient to demolish your claim that the NDE can be explained by brain chemistry alone; it is obvious that you did not read too much of the evidence or did not think about it clearly.

Quote from: popcorn1 on September 25, 2015, 03:52:43 AM

what ever your brain thinks to make you comfortable before you die..

This assertion is totally untested and you provided no empirical data to back it, I have completely refuted it; so far there is no evidence to support your conclusion, but to support the survival hypothesis we have the fact that there is no medical explanation for these NDEs.

Quote from: popcorn1 on September 25, 2015, 03:52:43 AM

but as i have stated even if there is an afterlife why would there still be a god would this not just what happens when we die..

I have posted my proof of God, I have refuted your disagreement on the first (inductive/scientific) point, so what is wrong with the rest of my proof which only uses deduction once the survival hypothesis is accepted? Please quote my proof and point out the logical error.

Quote from: popcorn1 on September 25, 2015, 03:52:43 AM

NOW HERE IS MY THINKING ON YOUR 52 POINTS ..SO PLEASE DON.T ASK ME TO REPEAT.

Don't bother repeating yourself because the data proves you wrong; you cannot even explain why the brain bothers to make such "illusions" because you are proven incorrect (by the data) in your assumption that NDE is an imagined event.

Quote from: popcorn1 on September 25, 2015, 03:52:43 AM

plus how many get drugs pumped into them whiles they are dying or in hospital ..
morphine

Here you have posted yet another untested and hypothetical explanation with little to no explanatory power. This is not how science is done, my friend.

Quote from: popcorn1 on September 25, 2015, 12:56:39 AM

AT LEAST WITH AN ATHEIST WE ASK FOR PROOF AND THEN THE PROBLEM IS SOLVED ..

Oh really? Maybe a rational atheist can solve a problem by using rational thinking, but you have not.

A pseudo-skeptic like yourself will ask for proof and try to discredit the empirical evidence for the afterlife by making up stories about why that evidence might be wrong without really investigating the evidence or by backing up his/her stories with facts, or in other words IGNORING the proof; then, s/he will go on believing whatever s/he wants to believe, thinking that the problem is solved.