An Open Letter to Atheists

[Tiger]

Ill take the win, thank you.

Win? Haha.


Similar to when you jumped in underpants first into the AWARE II study yesterday and declared ‘case closed', or the study about brain fluctuations in the seconds around cardiac arrest like they were slam dunks and then (unfortunately for you) turned out to be hopelessly way off, this Woerlee 'study' is just as off course.

Woerlee's rejoinder is a masterclass in evasion, not evidence (seems to be a reoccurring habit of atheists). He's a spoofer who ignores the actual findings of the study. Atheists like yourself are just looking to someone like him to tickle their ears regardless of the feeble standard of his report. During Pam Reynolds' surgery, auditory brainstem responses (ABRs) were tested and found to be silent. This is the most sensitive measure of auditory function, and if bone conduction or ambient sound leakage were significant, there would have been at least some measurable ABR. Yet the surgical team’s monitoring showed none.

Her surgery involved deep hypothermic circulatory arrest, which dramatically slows metabolism and suppresses neural firing. At those low temperatures, with the brain cooled and blood drained, neuronal function; including that required for perception and memory formation; is profoundly impaired or halted. Woerlee’s explanations do not account in any way shape or form for how any sound input or brain activity could survive these physiological conditions. He offers no proper evidence to support his case.

Pam Reynolds did not just report vague sensations; she described specific tools, such as the Midas Rex saw, procedural details, and snippets of conversation, all later confirmed by the surgical team. The accuracy of such unusual details is extremely difficult to explain through vague hypotheses like “hearing through bone” (WTF is that) or guessing. Furthermore, the timing of her perceptions is crucial: many occurred while her EEG was flat, her brainstem reflexes were absent, and there was no blood in her brain. This is far outside the narrow window of residual activity that materialists often rely on, making Woerlee’s attempt to lump all perceptions into a transitional phase of anesthesia or light activity inconsistent with the actual medical record.

Finally, Woerlee’s argument is purely speculative. He offers no counter-evidence to invalidate her claims, only possibilities that are not supported by physiological data. To refute her experiences, one would need to demonstrate errors in the verified reports or provide a plausible, well-documented alternative, not theoretical conjecture. The Reynolds case, with its detailed, verified, and impossible-to-explain observations, remains a significant challenge to materialist explanations of consciousness and highlights phenomena that science has yet to fully account for.

Instead of lazily putting crappy low grade links up, why don’t you try to debate the case study in your own words? Is it because you have no familiarity with the case? Of course it is.

Here’s a link to her case featured in a BBC documentary:


View: https://youtu.be/osfIY4B3y1U?feature=shared

 

[AN2]

Win? Haha.


Similar to when you jumped in underpants first into the AWARE II study yesterday and declared ‘case closed', or the study about brain fluctuations in the seconds around cardiac arrest like they were slam dunks and then (unfortunately for you) turned out to be hopelessly way off, this Woerlee 'study' is just as off course.

Woerlee's rejoinder is a masterclass in evasion, not evidence (seems to be a reoccurring habit of atheists). He's a spoofer who ignores the actual findings of the study. Atheists like yourself are just looking to someone like him to tickle their ears regardless of the feeble standard of his report. During Pam Reynolds' surgery, auditory brainstem responses (ABRs) were tested and found to be silent. This is the most sensitive measure of auditory function, and if bone conduction or ambient sound leakage were significant, there would have been at least some measurable ABR. Yet the surgical team’s monitoring showed none.

Her surgery involved deep hypothermic circulatory arrest, which dramatically slows metabolism and suppresses neural firing. At those low temperatures, with the brain cooled and blood drained, neuronal function; including that required for perception and memory formation; is profoundly impaired or halted. Woerlee’s explanations do not account in any way shape or form for how any sound input or brain activity could survive these physiological conditions. He offers no proper evidence to support his case.

Pam Reynolds did not just report vague sensations; she described specific tools, such as the Midas Rex saw, procedural details, and snippets of conversation, all later confirmed by the surgical team. The accuracy of such unusual details is extremely difficult to explain through vague hypotheses like “hearing through bone” (WTF is that) or guessing. Furthermore, the timing of her perceptions is crucial: many occurred while her EEG was flat, her brainstem reflexes were absent, and there was no blood in her brain. This is far outside the narrow window of residual activity that materialists often rely on, making Woerlee’s attempt to lump all perceptions into a transitional phase of anesthesia or light activity inconsistent with the actual medical record.

Finally, Woerlee’s argument is purely speculative. He offers no counter-evidence to invalidate her claims, only possibilities that are not supported by physiological data. To refute her experiences, one would need to demonstrate errors in the verified reports or provide a plausible, well-documented alternative, not theoretical conjecture. The Reynolds case, with its detailed, verified, and impossible-to-explain observations, remains a significant challenge to materialist explanations of consciousness and highlights phenomena that science has yet to fully account for.

Instead of lazily putting crappy low grade links up, why don’t you try to debate the case study in your own words? Is it because you have no familiarity with the case? Of course it is.

Here’s a link to her case featured in a BBC documentary:


View: https://youtu.be/osfIY4B3y1U?feature=shared

You keep on saying that "materialism" doesn't have the answers, so why don't you write your answer here (instead of playing your endlessly stupid Catholic game ) -


_____________________________________________

 

[AN2]

Win? Haha.


Similar to when you jumped in underpants first into the AWARE II study yesterday and declared ‘case closed', or the study about brain fluctuations in the seconds around cardiac arrest like they were slam dunks and then (unfortunately for you) turned out to be hopelessly way off, this Woerlee 'study' is just as off course.

Woerlee's rejoinder is a masterclass in evasion, not evidence (seems to be a reoccurring habit of atheists). He's a spoofer who ignores the actual findings of the study. Atheists like yourself are just looking to someone like him to tickle their ears regardless of the feeble standard of his report. During Pam Reynolds' surgery, auditory brainstem responses (ABRs) were tested and found to be silent. This is the most sensitive measure of auditory function, and if bone conduction or ambient sound leakage were significant, there would have been at least some measurable ABR. Yet the surgical team’s monitoring showed none.

Her surgery involved deep hypothermic circulatory arrest, which dramatically slows metabolism and suppresses neural firing. At those low temperatures, with the brain cooled and blood drained, neuronal function; including that required for perception and memory formation; is profoundly impaired or halted. Woerlee’s explanations do not account in any way shape or form for how any sound input or brain activity could survive these physiological conditions. He offers no proper evidence to support his case.

Pam Reynolds did not just report vague sensations; she described specific tools, such as the Midas Rex saw, procedural details, and snippets of conversation, all later confirmed by the surgical team. The accuracy of such unusual details is extremely difficult to explain through vague hypotheses like “hearing through bone” (WTF is that) or guessing. Furthermore, the timing of her perceptions is crucial: many occurred while her EEG was flat, her brainstem reflexes were absent, and there was no blood in her brain. This is far outside the narrow window of residual activity that materialists often rely on, making Woerlee’s attempt to lump all perceptions into a transitional phase of anesthesia or light activity inconsistent with the actual medical record.

Finally, Woerlee’s argument is purely speculative. He offers no counter-evidence to invalidate her claims, only possibilities that are not supported by physiological data. To refute her experiences, one would need to demonstrate errors in the verified reports or provide a plausible, well-documented alternative, not theoretical conjecture. The Reynolds case, with its detailed, verified, and impossible-to-explain observations, remains a significant challenge to materialist explanations of consciousness and highlights phenomena that science has yet to fully account for.

Instead of lazily putting crappy low grade links up, why don’t you try to debate the case study in your own words? Is it because you have no familiarity with the case? Of course it is.

Here’s a link to her case featured in a BBC documentary:

View: https://youtu.be/osfIY4B3y1U?feature=shared

(I doubt that's the BBC btw)

Edit:

I will always correct myself if I'm wrong. It does appear to be a BBC documentary - "The Day I Died" (2002)

 

[Tiger]

(I doubt that's the BBC btw)

Edit:

I will always correct myself if I'm wrong. It does appear to be a BBC documentary - "The day I died" (2002)

Fair play. I don’t think Tank would do the same.

You have ‘1 up’ on him.

 

[AN2]

Fair play. I don’t think Tank would do the same.

You have ‘1 up’ on him.

Now please tell us what your answer is, which isn't - materialism doesn't have the answer

You need to own your woo (or forever hold your peace)

 

[AN2]

(I doubt that's the BBC btw)

Edit:

I will always correct myself if I'm wrong. It does appear to be a BBC documentary - "The Day I Died" (2002)

Also BBC:


View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ob1rYlCpOnM

 

[Haven]

Now please tell us what your answer is, which isn't - materialism doesn't have the answer

You need to own your woo (or forever hold your peace)

The Pam Reynolds case is textbook anesthesia awareness.

Tiger has to offer something new and testable. So far I havent seen it. If the subjects in AWARE2 had seen the visual image, that would have helped him. Alas, its all junk so far.

 

[Tiger]

The Pam Reynolds case is textbook anesthesia awareness.

Tiger has to offer something new and testable. So far I havent seen it. If the subjects in AWARE2 had seen the visual image, that would have helped him. Alas, its all junk so far.

Literally every word of this response suggests you have no clue about this subject matter. You’re out on a limb scrambling with Google and AI trying to look like you are well read on this subject and it’s not working.

Your replies are hopeless.

 

[AN2]

The Pam Reynolds case is textbook anesthesia awareness.

Tiger has to offer something new and testable. So far I havent seen it. If the subjects in AWARE2 had seen the visual image, that would have helped him. Alas, its all junk so far.

Yes, I think AWARE is now dead in the water, as it were. Good work Haven!

 

[Tiger]

Yes, I think AWARE is now dead in the water, as it were. Good work Haven!

Haha, James, you barely know what day of the week it is.

Tank and yourself are giving a hopeless representation of the atheist/materialist position.

I’d say neither of ye has read a book in years.

 

[Haven]

Yes, I think AWARE is now dead in the water, as it were. Good work Haven!

The research will continue of course.

The new science of death: ‘There’s something happening in the brain that makes no sense’

The long read: New research into the dying brain suggests the line between life and death may be less distinct than previously thought

www.theguardian.com

 

[AN2]

Haha, James, you barely know what day of the week it is.

Tank and yourself are giving a hopeless representation of the atheist/materialist position.

I’d say neither of ye has read a book in years.

 

[clarke-connolly]

View attachment 8139

I think that yer wan was looking for a Homo !

 

[Tiger]

The research will continue of course.

The new science of death: ‘There’s something happening in the brain that makes no sense’

The long read: New research into the dying brain suggests the line between life and death may be less distinct than previously thought

www.theguardian.com

Tank, can you do everyone a favour and tell us why you bothered to post this Guardian article? Did you actually read it?

It has nothing to say of any worth....the article strings together anecdotes, historical accounts, and a handful of modern EEG observations, yet it never meaningfully engages with the core scientific questions about NDEs.

There’s no rigorous analysis of timing, veridical perceptions, or the causal relationship between brain activity and conscious experience. Instead, it functions as a general, sloppy journalistic commentary on “death is strange” and “gamma waves spike” without offering any substantive argument for or against the reality of NDEs.

Its reliance on narrative storytelling and appeals to wonder gives the illusion of insight, but at the end of the day, it contributes nothing concrete to the scientific or philosophical debate. It’s more fluff than evidence. Can you tell us why you posted it? Did you think the headline meant that it had something to say?

What was the point in posting it? Are you now simply 'googling' articles and throwing mud at a wall?

 

[Aldo1]

Tank, can you do everyone a favour and tell us why you bothered to post this Guardian article? Did you actually read it?

All he does is post random links (after he's consulted with chatgpt).

 

[AN2]

I think that yer wan was looking for a Homo !

She's a beautiful woman in fairness. MILF territory I suppose, but beautiful nonetheless.

Bríd Smith.. (and doesn't even know what ad hom is)

 

[Tiger]

All he does is post random links (after he's consulted with chatgpt).

Yup, that’s exactly what it looks like.

Tiger 4 - 0 Tank

 

[AN2]

You keep on saying that "materialism" doesn't have the answers, so why don't you write your answer here (instead of playing your endlessly stupid Catholic game ) -


_____________________________________________

Explain your woo, shit-4-brains..

 

[AN2]

The modus operandi:

I'll just keep on saying - "Materialism doesn't have the answer", offering no explanation of my own (because I'm embarrassed by it)..

Twas always thus

 

[AN2]

All he does is post random links (after he's consulted with chatgpt).

I can't understand what you're saying with all that Tiger cock and balls in your mouth

 

[Haven]

All he does is post random links (after he's consulted with chatgpt).

I've posted links that rebut Tigers thesis, in some cases destroys it completely. Theres nothing random about it.

NDE is real, but its all within the human brain. OBE was tested empirically by Parnia in AWARE2, and no visual evidence was found. All Tiger is relying on now is one case that is typical anesthesia awareness.

He has presented the sum total of nothing, once the gish gallop rhetoric is stripped away.

 

[Aldo1]

I can't understand what you're saying with all that Tiger cock and balls in your mouth

Calm down, Lumpy.

 

[AN2]

Calm down, Lumpy.

I'm always calm. And certainly a cretin like you couldn't raise my heartbeat.. because you have nothing to say, you're the dullest of the dull.. a snoozefest. You're not capable of anything more interesting than pissing and moaning

 

[Aldo1]

I'm always calm. And certainly a cretin like you couldn't raise my heartbeat.. because you have nothing to say, you're the dullest of the dull.. a snoozefest. You're not capable of anything more interesting than pissing and moaning

Relax, Lumpy.

 

[Tiger]

The modus operandi:

I'll just keep on saying - "Materialism doesn't have the answer", offering no explanation of my own (because I'm embarrassed by it)..

Twas always thus

What you call a “Catholic game” is in fact the only intellectual position in this debate that has not collapsed into incoherence. The “game” is on your side: the endless shuffle of evasions, revisions, and ad hoc rationalisations that materialism coughs up whenever it runs headlong into the brute fact of consciousness. You can't even give a basic definition of what 'consciousness' is. You aren't even at the starting line.

You say “write your answer here.” But that’s the trap you’re in; you imagine your bankrupt creed has earned the right to demand answers when it cannot furnish one itself. You swagger as though “materialism” has a foundation, when in reality it is a sandcastle of jargon erected against the tide of reality.

The answer is plain, and it has been plain for centuries: consciousness is not a secretion of meat. NDEs, veridical perception, the irreducibility of the mind; all of it testifies to an order beyond matter. You hate that answer because it leaves your ideology in ruins, exposed as a fraud propped up by “science” pressed into service as a catechism of unbelief.

This is not about “Catholic games.” It is about your terror that reality itself contradicts the catechism of materialism. And so you sneer and call names, because that’s all you have left.

 

[AN2]

Relax, Lumpy.

Stop with your crap. You don't even know what atheism is, or what any of the discussion is ever about. Children should be seen and not heard, so shut the f*ck up, child

 

[Aldo1]

Stop with your crap. You don't even know what atheism is, or what any of the discussion is ever about. Children should be seen and not heard, so shut the f*ck up, child

Shut up you whiny faggot. You're worse than a fking vegan. We get it. You're a tedious atheist bore who obsesses over religion far more than the religious posters you constantly whine about. Geebag.

 

[AN2]

What you call a “Catholic game” is in fact the only intellectual position in this debate that has not collapsed into incoherence. The “game” is on your side: the endless shuffle of evasions, revisions, and ad hoc rationalisations that materialism coughs up whenever it runs headlong into the brute fact of consciousness. You can't even give a basic definition of what 'consciousness' is. You aren't even at the starting line.

You say “write your answer here.” But that’s the trap you’re in; you imagine your bankrupt creed has earned the right to demand answers when it cannot furnish one itself. You swagger as though “materialism” has a foundation, when in reality it is a sandcastle of jargon erected against the tide of reality.

The answer is plain, and it has been plain for centuries: consciousness is not a secretion of meat. NDEs, veridical perception, the irreducibility of the mind; all of it testifies to an order beyond matter. You hate that answer because it leaves your ideology in ruins, exposed as a fraud propped up by “science” pressed into service as a catechism of unbelief.

This is not about “Catholic games.” It is about your terror that reality itself contradicts the catechism of materialism. And so you sneer and call names, because that’s all you have left.

The Catholic game is saying - "Materialism" doesn't have the answer. Yet you offer no answer of your own (because it's God of the gaps, duh)

 

[AN2]

Maybe it's a sort of willful ignorance?

Are most people who identify as atheist actually agnostic?

The vast majority of atheists are actually both. Atheist only means that you don’t believe in any god, agnostic means that you don’t claim to know if there are gods or not. Those positions are not only perfectly compatible, their combination forms the only rational position in the debate.

You were probably told that atheists claim to know there are no gods and that agnostics cannot make up their minds if they believe in a god or not. Those definitions come from theists to reduce the possible positions to one that is attackable, the claim that there are no gods, and one that does not claim disbelief. That way suddenly all non-believers are wrong and theists can pretend that they are in a superior position. They are not. Those definitions not only are rarely ever how atheists define themselves, they are also deliberately incomplete in order not to have to deal with a position theists cannot overcome: agnostic atheism.

This is a fantastic comment (not my own) that I must bump.. because it explains so much about theists like @Tiger. Now watch him squirm..

 

[Tiger]

I've posted links that rebut Tigers thesis, in some cases destroys it completely. Theres nothing random about it.

NDE is real, but its all within the human brain. OBE was tested empirically by Parnia in AWARE2, and no visual evidence was found. All Tiger is relying on now is one case that is typical anesthesia awareness.

He has presented the sum total of nothing, once the gish gallop rhetoric is stripped away.

Haha, Tank you're a stand up comedian who has convinced as many zero people..

Every pathetic challenge that you’ve thrown so far has already been answered and put to bed. Not once have you managed to shore up your original, paper-thin argument. You abandon each claim the moment it’s exposed, only to lunge at another like a drowning man clawing at driftwood.

You keep repeating the tired mantra that NDEs are “all in the brain,” but when the cortex is flatlined, the blood drained, and the instruments confirm silence, you fall back on the farce of “anesthesia awareness.” That’s not an argument; it’s a fairy tale told to pacify the acolytes of scientism.

As for AWARE II, you wave it like a banner of triumph, but the reality is a paltry study with minimal scope. Its lack of a visual hit doesn’t erase the documented body of veridical cases any more than a failed telescope disproves the stars. Your pretense that one quiet dataset cancels decades of evidence is pure sleight of hand.

And still, James' prattles about “Catholic games” while practicing your own catechism of materialism. The ritual is always the same: deny, dismiss, and ridicule. Yet every serious inquirer who examines the evidence sees what you refuse to — that Pam Reynolds is not a fluke but the tip of an enormous iceberg, one that threatens to capsize the shallow creed you mistake for science. There are tens of thousands of medical accounts and hundreds of thousands of non medical accounts all super consistent. I know of 3 cases myself in my own family.
So go on, keep boasting about “destroying” arguments you’ve never actually engaged. To anyone watching closely, your evasions and shifting goalposts are the loudest admission that you’ve got nothing left but posturing.

 

[Myles O'Reilly]

Tank can you at least concede that the mind and the brain are two different things?

 

[Tiger]

Tank can you at least concede that the mind and the brain are two different things?

Myles, I’m impressed.

Kudos for following the discussion.

 

[AN2]

Myles, I’m impressed.

Kudos for following the discussion.

Nice try schlomo. Even you know that we're talking a little beyond Myler's paygrade (sorry Milometre)

 

[AN2]

Tiger's explanation for NDEs..

Everyone wants to know.. but don't hold your breath (like all religious people, he never answers any questions)..

 

[AN2]

Shut up you whiny faggot. You're worse than a fking vegan. We get it. You're a tedious atheist bore who obsesses over religion far more than the religious posters you constantly whine about. Geebag.

BACK in the news recently.. Here is my personal anthem (again) -


View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9QS0q3mGPGg

 

[AN2]

Haha, Tank you're a stand up comedian who has convinced as many zero people..

Every pathetic challenge that you’ve thrown so far has already been answered and put to bed. Not once have you managed to shore up your original, paper-thin argument.

You abandon each claim the moment it’s exposed, only to lunge at another like a drowning man clawing at driftwood.

Does anyone else get a little sick in the mouth with these endless analogies

You keep repeating the tired mantra that NDEs are “all in the brain,” but when the cortex is flatlined, the blood drained, and the instruments confirm silence, you fall back on the farce of “anesthesia awareness.”

That’s not an argument; it’s a fairy tale told to pacify the acolytes of scientism.

It's not X, it's Y..

As for AWARE II, you wave it like a banner of triumph, but the reality is a paltry study with minimal scope. Its lack of a visual hit doesn’t erase the documented body of veridical cases any more than a failed telescope disproves the stars. Your pretense that one quiet dataset cancels decades of evidence is pure sleight of hand.

And still, James' prattles about “Catholic games” while practicing your own catechism of materialism.

"Catechism of materialism".. the language torture continues..

I've tolden you what the game is

The ritual is always the same: deny, dismiss, and ridicule. Yet every serious inquirer who examines the evidence sees what you refuse to — that Pam Reynolds is not a fluke but the tip of an enormous iceberg, one that threatens to capsize the shallow creed you mistake for science. There are tens of thousands of medical accounts and hundreds of thousands of non medical accounts all super consistent. I know of 3 cases myself in my own family.

So go on, keep boasting about “destroying” arguments you’ve never actually engaged. To anyone watching closely, your evasions and shifting goalposts are the loudest admission that you’ve got nothing left but posturing.

Tiger, learn to communicate like a human being and not a fucking bot slash sleeping pill

 

[Haven]

Tank can you at least concede that the mind and the brain are two different things?

Different in that they exist independently of each other?

No.

Mind needs matter.

 

[AN2]

Different in that they exist independently of each other?

No.

Mind needs matter.

@Myles O'Reilly, you're confused, why?

Tiger is saying that a 'mind' exists independent of matter, a human body, what he calls a 'soul'. You can think of these things as different but do you think one exists without the other?

 

[Myles O'Reilly]

Not necessarily Sir. But I've yet to hear of a Neurosurgeon who's found a thought, memory etc.

 

[AN2]

Not necessarily Sir. But I've yet to hear of a Neurosurgeon who's found a thought, memory etc.

Yes, that's fine.. and something Tiger said that I "bravely" admitted to. Do you believe that your mind still exists eleventeen years after your tombstone has been engraved - Here lies Myles O'Reilly, he loved Tommeh so he did?