An Open Letter to Atheists

[AN2]

View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=slr1UFrFiY8

 

[AN2]

lol Another DI (Discovery Institute) hire -

Michael Egnor - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

No one should want that guy anywhere near then with a scalpel

 

[Tiger]

I'm not doing X, I'm doing Y..




Tiger would have us believe in alien abduction



It's not X, it's Y

And I mean, how stupid is "Materialism of the Gaps", where did you hear that from, a Daily Dose Of Special Needs YouTube video?

Science doesn't fill gaps in knowledge and understanding (with the supernatural), that's the point. Dreary me

James ‘the dodger’ Dawson; you’re dodging again. When you can’t answer the evidence, you retreat into vague word-games and cheap childish insults. The phrase ‘Materialism of the Gaps’ isn’t YouTube fluff : it’s simply describing what you’re doing: assuming without evidence that science will someday explain away data that currently completely contradicts your worldview. That’s textbook promissory materialism.

The casual reader will notice that you haven't challenged the evidence in any way shape or form.

You've got nothing by way of explanation.

Nothing.

 

[Tiger]

No, it's really not. It's Daily Dose Of Special Needs and another religiotard babble incoherently about "materialism" for almost two hours

My pet dog is better at debating than you are James. Resorting to childish insults isn’t an argument. If anything, it's tantamount to admitting defeat.

Dr. Egnor is citing real clinical data—patients missing most of their brains who still function normally, conscious individuals with no cerebral hemispheres, and people who report accurate experiences during clinical death when the brain is shut down. In one particular case, the patient has had all the blood removed from her brain to allow the surgeon to repair an aneurysm.

These facts exist whether you like them or not. Materialism can’t explain them, and sneering at those who point it out won’t make the evidence go away.

You have literally no argument in response so far.

 

[AN2]

My pet dog is better at debating than you are James. Resorting to childish insults isn’t an argument. If anything, it's tantamount to admitting defeat.

Dr. Egnor is citing real clinical data—patients missing most of their brains who still function normally, conscious individuals with no cerebral hemispheres, and people who report accurate experiences during clinical death when the brain is shut down. In one particular case, the patient has had all the blood removed from her brain to allow the surgeon to repair an aneurysm.

These facts exist whether you like them or not. Materialism can’t explain them

And you explain them with your God stuff

Not to mention your "facts" don't show that consciousness can exist apart from the body. This was mentioned to you early doors but you don't listen to anything that's said to you

, and sneering at those who point it out won’t make the evidence go away.

You have literally no argument in response so far.

 

[Tiger]

And you explain them with your God stuff

Haha, you bloody ding dong - it’s not me who ‘brought God into this’ ; it’s the patients themselves you wally.

People who were clinically dead consistently report encounters with God, Christ, or angelic beings. That’s THEIR testimony, not my projection. And these testimonies come from every corner of the globe, across religions and cultures, with strikingly consistent patterns. What happens with them lies outside the explanatory scope of material science; which is why it challenges materialism so deeply.

Also, to be clear - I haven’t ‘explained this with ‘God stuff.’ I’ve pointed to peer-reviewed medical data (van Lommel in The Lancet, Parnia’s AWARE project, the European Academy of Neurology’s 2019 survey) showing patients with no measurable brain activity reporting structured, veridical experiences. That’s evidence, not theology.

Not to mention your "facts" don't show that consciousness can exist apart from the body. This was mentioned to you early doors but you don't listen to anything that's said to you

Naturally, your line that ‘the facts don’t show consciousness apart from the body’ is just a materialist mantra. The facts show that verifiable conscious experience occurs during periods when, under materialism, consciousness should be impossible; flatlined EEG, absent cortical function, sometimes for extended durations. That directly contradicts the materialist/atheist assumption that brain activity is consciousness.

So let’s flip it around: this isn’t me importing God; it’s you importing dogmatic materialism in the face of evidence that doesn’t fit. The data show consciousness functioning where your worldview says it cannot. If your only move is to ignore the evidence or call it ‘God of the Gaps,’ that’s not science; it’s denial.

Insert non-answer here

 

[AN2]

Haha, you bloody ding dong - it’s not me who ‘brought God into this’ ; it’s the patients themselves you wally.

View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dHd0_JelipE

You truly are a ridiculous person

People who were clinically dead consistently report encounters with God, Christ, or angelic beings. That’s THEIR testimony, not my projection. And these testimonies come from every corner of the globe, across religions and cultures, with strikingly consistent patterns. What happens with them lies outside the explanatory scope of material science; which is why it challenges materialism so deeply.

Also, to be clear - I haven’t ‘explained this with ‘God stuff.’ I’ve pointed to peer-reviewed medical data (van Lommel in The Lancet, Parnia’s AWARE project, the European Academy of Neurology’s 2019 survey) showing patients with no measurable brain activity reporting structured, veridical experiences. That’s evidence, not theology.



Naturally, your line that ‘the facts don’t show consciousness apart from the body’ is just a materialist mantra. The facts show that verifiable conscious experience occurs during periods when, under materialism, consciousness should be impossible; flatlined EEG, absent cortical function, sometimes for extended durations. That directly contradicts the materialist/atheist assumption that brain activity is consciousness.

So let’s flip it around: this isn’t me importing God; it’s you importing dogmatic materialism in the face of evidence that doesn’t fit. The data show consciousness functioning where your worldview says it cannot. If your only move is to ignore the evidence or call it ‘God of the Gaps,’ that’s not science; it’s denial.

Insert non-answer here

 

[Tiger]

View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dHd0_JelipE

You truly are a ridiculous person

Are you not embarrassed by your feeble attempt at addressing the evidence?

You’ve literally provided nothing.

Nothing. Not A SINGLE FUCKING THING.

 

[AN2]

Are you not embarrassed by your feeble attempt at addressing the evidence?

You’ve literally provided nothing.

Nothing. Not A SINGLE FUCKING THING.

"It's not me who brought God into this".. is such a remarkable statement, what shall we put it down to, a complete lack of self-awareness?

 

[Tiger]

"It's not me who brought God into this".. is such a remarkable statement, what shall we put it down to, a complete lack of self-awareness?

For crying out loud James, that response is exactly what you always do when cornered: you can’t argue the point, so you dodge it with a childish - low IQ quip. It’s transparent. The irony is that you accuse me of lacking self-awareness, yet you’re the one avoiding the actual argument in front of you.

The record is clear: patients who were clinically dead brought God into this conversation; not me. They consistently describe encounters with transcendent beings, often Christ or angelic figures, across cultures and contexts. That testimony is what we’re discussing. You can sneer at it, but you can’t erase the fact that it’s there, documented, peer-reviewed, and consistent.

And once again, you’ve refused to answer the central problem: how do structured, verifiable perceptions occur during periods of flatlined EEG and absent cortical function? That’s the crux, and you know it. Instead of addressing it, you retreat into sarcasm, because deep down you understand that the data contradicts your materialist assumptions.

You’re a serial loser.

As usual you’re not debating; you’re dodging. And dodging is the refuge of someone who knows they can’t actually defend their position.

Insert low IQ non answer here

 

[AN2]

For crying out loud James, that response is exactly what you always do when cornered

You don't corner me, you just don't pay any attention to what I say in reply. Twas always thus

: you can’t argue the point, so you dodge it with a childish - low IQ quip. It’s transparent. The irony is that you accuse me of lacking self-awareness, yet you’re the one avoiding the actual argument in front of you.

The record is clear: patients who were clinically dead brought God into this conversation; not me. They consistently describe encounters with transcendent beings, often Christ or angelic figures, across cultures and contexts. That testimony is what we’re discussing. You can sneer at it, but you can’t erase the fact that it’s there, documented, peer-reviewed, and consistent.

And once again, you’ve refused to answer the central problem: how do structured, verifiable perceptions occur during periods of flatlined EEG and absent cortical function? That’s the crux, and you know it. Instead of addressing it, you retreat into sarcasm, because deep down you understand that the data contradicts your materialist assumptions.

You’re a serial loser.

As usual you’re not debating; you’re dodging. And dodging is the refuge of someone who knows they can’t actually defend their position.

Insert low IQ non answer here

 

[Tiger]

"It's not me who brought God into this".. is such a remarkable statement, what shall we put it down to, a complete lack of self-awareness?

If you had one serious argument you’d make it. But you have none. You’re out of depth as usual.

I’m smashing your face in over and over again.

Tiger 5 - 0 James ‘the illiterate loser’ Dawson

 

[AN2]

I have actually replied quite comprehensively to your God of the gaps fallacy, Tiger

Centered around the fact that none of your "facts" show that consciousness can exist apart from the body. Whether that's "witnesses" who have a NDE (they don't actually die Tiggy - only Jesus rose from the dead, you should know that) or people who are missing part of their brain

When you show me someone with an empty skull (which you're close to) or someone walking and talking days after they've died, then I'll believe you

 

[AN2]

News at 11..

NDDE (Near Dog Death Experience) -


View: https://m.youtube.com/shorts/dKiRBMDeghI

The dog, named 'Lucky', was asked afterwards: Did you encounter Christ? One woof for Yes, two woofs for No

 

[Myles O'Reilly]

Tiger what do you think of Karoline Leavitt's musings in the aftermath of Kirk's death?

“On the night Charlie was shot, a 4.1 earthquake struck Utah. In scripture, 40 represents trials; 41 signifies a shift. It hit at 5:57 local time, 7:57 Eastern. Acts 7:57 describes Stephen, the first martyr, stoned as the crowd silenced his truth. The Bible says the earth trembles when God is angry. That night, as a voice was silenced, the ground groaned.”

 

[Haven]

Tiger what do you think of Karoline Leavitt's musings in the aftermath of Kirk's death?

“On the night Charlie was shot, a 4.1 earthquake struck Utah. In scripture, 40 represents trials; 41 signifies a shift. It hit at 5:57 local time, 7:57 Eastern. Acts 7:57 describes Stephen, the first martyr, stoned as the crowd silenced his truth. The Bible says the earth trembles when God is angry. That night, as a voice was silenced, the ground groaned.”

These kinds of earthquakes are as common as dirt in the US.

 

[Haven]

For crying out loud James, that response is exactly what you always do when cornered: you can’t argue the point, so you dodge it with a childish - low IQ quip. It’s transparent. The irony is that you accuse me of lacking self-awareness, yet you’re the one avoiding the actual argument in front of you.

The record is clear: patients who were clinically dead brought God into this conversation; not me. They consistently describe encounters with transcendent beings, often Christ or angelic figures, across cultures and contexts. That testimony is what we’re discussing. You can sneer at it, but you can’t erase the fact that it’s there, documented, peer-reviewed, and consistent.

And once again, you’ve refused to answer the central problem: how do structured, verifiable perceptions occur during periods of flatlined EEG and absent cortical function? That’s the crux, and you know it. Instead of addressing it, you retreat into sarcasm, because deep down you understand that the data contradicts your materialist assumptions.

You’re a serial loser.

As usual you’re not debating; you’re dodging. And dodging is the refuge of someone who knows they can’t actually defend their position.

Insert low IQ non answer here

This is bonkers. We know what happens.

Researchers Scan Brain of Dying Patient: What they Found

A team of scientists inadvertently recorded the brainwaves of an 87-year-old patient as he died, providing the first glimpse at what happens in the brain during the final moments of life.

www.healthline.com

"A team of scientists inadvertently recorded the brainwaves of an 87-year-old patient as he died, providing the first glimpse at what happens in the brain during the final moments of life.
The man’s brainwave patterns in the 30 seconds before and after his heart stopped beating were similar to what occurs during dreaming, memory recall, and meditation."

“We were surprised by the high levels of activity,” study author Dr. George Mashour, assistant professor of anesthesiology and neurosurgery at the University of Michigan, said in a news release at the time.
“In fact, at near-death, many known electrical signatures of consciousness exceeded levels found in the waking state, suggesting that the brain is capable of well-organized electrical activity during the early stage of clinical death.”
The similarity between the results of the two studies suggests that there may be a common neurological response to death that occurs across species, at least among mammals."

https://www.michiganmedicine.org/health-lab/evidence-conscious-activity-dying-brain

"
The team identified four patients who passed away due to cardiac arrest in the hospital while under EEG monitoring. All four of the patients were comatose and unresponsive. They were ultimately determined to be beyond medical help and, with their families’ permission, removed from life support.

Upon removal of ventilator support, two of the patients showed an increase in heart rate along with a surge of gamma wave activity, considered the fastest brain activity and associated with consciousness.

Furthermore, the activity was detected in the so-called hot zone of neural correlates of consciousness in the brain, the junction between the temporal, parietal and occipital lobes in the back of the brain. This area has been correlated with dreaming, visual hallucinations in epilepsy, and altered states of consciousness in other brain studies."

 

[Tiger]

This is bonkers. We know what happens.

Researchers Scan Brain of Dying Patient: What they Found

A team of scientists inadvertently recorded the brainwaves of an 87-year-old patient as he died, providing the first glimpse at what happens in the brain during the final moments of life.

www.healthline.com

"A team of scientists inadvertently recorded the brainwaves of an 87-year-old patient as he died, providing the first glimpse at what happens in the brain during the final moments of life.
The man’s brainwave patterns in the 30 seconds before and after his heart stopped beating were similar to what occurs during dreaming, memory recall, and meditation."

“We were surprised by the high levels of activity,” study author Dr. George Mashour, assistant professor of anesthesiology and neurosurgery at the University of Michigan, said in a news release at the time.
“In fact, at near-death, many known electrical signatures of consciousness exceeded levels found in the waking state, suggesting that the brain is capable of well-organized electrical activity during the early stage of clinical death.”
The similarity between the results of the two studies suggests that there may be a common neurological response to death that occurs across species, at least among mammals."

https://www.michiganmedicine.org/health-lab/evidence-conscious-activity-dying-brain

"
The team identified four patients who passed away due to cardiac arrest in the hospital while under EEG monitoring. All four of the patients were comatose and unresponsive. They were ultimately determined to be beyond medical help and, with their families’ permission, removed from life support.

Upon removal of ventilator support, two of the patients showed an increase in heart rate along with a surge of gamma wave activity, considered the fastest brain activity and associated with consciousness.

Furthermore, the activity was detected in the so-called hot zone of neural correlates of consciousness in the brain, the junction between the temporal, parietal and occipital lobes in the back of the brain. This area has been correlated with dreaming, visual hallucinations in epilepsy, and altered states of consciousness in other brain studies."

Haha, eh no Tank; what’s bonkers is your inability to grasp what’s even being bloody discussed.

James (your AI guru) already made the rookie mistake of trying to hand-wave away the conundrum of remarkable NDEs by pointing to studies of residual brain activity during cardiac arrest (or at least his AI did). But that’s not what is on the table here. What we are discussing is the mountain of evidence showing structured, veridical conscious experiences during periods when brain activity is not merely diminished, but completely bloody absent. So you can file your article and your response in the bin of shame for confusing two entirely different questions. We're talking about the experiences of people who have died for more than an hour in many cases.

So, citing studies of gamma wave spikes or dreamlike patterns before or at the onset of death is irrelevant to the challenge posed by NDEs. These patients were clinically dead; flatlined EEG, absent cortical function, no measurable activity to support awareness. Yet they reported highly structured perceptions that were verifiable: describing surgical instruments, recounting conversations, even perceiving events outside their sensory range. That is data.

And here’s the real issue: if your materialist thesis were correct, the absence of brain function should mean the absence of consciousness. Full stop. But that’s not what the evidence shows. Instead, it shows conscious experience precisely when it should be impossible under materialism. That’s why van Lommel’s Lancet study, Parnia’s AWARE trials, and surveys across dozens of countries all converge on the same conclusion: the brain is not the whole story.

The phenomenon of dying-brain spikes has zero explanatory power for cases where consciousness occurs long after measurable activity has ceased. If you don’t understand that distinction, then the only thing on display here is your own confusion.

 

[Haven]

Haha, eh no Tank; what’s bonkers is your inability to grasp what’s even being bloody discussed.

James (your AI guru) already made the rookie mistake of trying to hand-wave away the conundrum of remarkable NDEs by pointing to studies of residual brain activity during cardiac arrest (or at least his AI did). But that’s not what is on the table here. What we are discussing is the mountain of evidence showing structured, veridical conscious experiences during periods when brain activity is not merely diminished, but completely bloody absent. So you can file your article and your response in the bin of shame for confusing two entirely different questions. We're talking about the experiences of people who have died for more than an hour in many cases.

So, citing studies of gamma wave spikes or dreamlike patterns before or at the onset of death is irrelevant to the challenge posed by NDEs. These patients were clinically dead; flatlined EEG,

So you are relying entirely on EEG data, even though we know it has varying sensitivity in confirming brain death.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/B9780444641427000424

The current recommendation is to favor blood flow studies (such as CT angiography or radionuclide scans), if possible, along with EEG.

Or MRI.

https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases/brain-death

In short you need a multimodal approach.

absent cortical function, no measurable activity to support awareness. Yet they reported highly structured perceptions that were verifiable: describing surgical instruments, recounting conversations, even perceiving events outside their sensory range. That is data.

And here’s the real issue: if your materialist thesis were correct, the absence of brain function should mean the absence of consciousness. Full stop. But that’s not what the evidence shows. Instead, it shows conscious experience precisely when it should be impossible under materialism. That’s why van Lommel’s Lancet study, Parnia’s AWARE trials, and surveys across dozens of countries all converge on the same conclusion: the brain is not the whole story.

The phenomenon of dying-brain spikes has zero explanatory power for cases where consciousness occurs long after measurable activity has ceased. If you don’t understand that distinction, then the only thing on display here is your own confusion.

The research has moved on.

https://medicalxpress.com/news/2025-04-neuroscientific-death-physiological-pattern.html#:~:text=Psychology%20&%20Psychiatry-,Neuroscientific%20model%20of%20near%2Ddeath%20experiences%20finds%20consistent%20physiological%20pattern,experiences%20often%20reported%20during%20NDEs.

AWARE came back with AWARE2.

https://www.resuscitationjournal.com/article/S0300-9572(23)00216-2/abstract

"In the cross-sectional arm, 126 community CA survivors’ experiences reinforced these categories and identified another: delusions (misattribution of medical events). Low survival limited the ability to examine for implicit learning. Nobody identified the visual image, 1/28(3.5%) identified the auditory stimulus. Despite marked cerebral ischemia (Mean rSO2 = 43%) normal EEG activity (delta, theta and alpha) consistent with consciousness emerged as long as 35–60 minutes into CPR."

Theres the answer.

 

[AN2]

Haha, eh no Tank; what’s bonkers is your inability to grasp what’s even being bloody discussed.

James (your AI guru) already made the rookie mistake of trying to hand-wave away the conundrum of remarkable NDEs by pointing to studies of residual brain activity during cardiac arrest (or at least his AI did). But that’s not what is on the table here. What we are discussing is the mountain of evidence showing structured, veridical conscious experiences during periods when brain activity is not merely diminished, but completely bloody absent. So you can file your article and your response in the bin of shame for confusing two entirely different questions. We're talking about the experiences of people who have died for more than an hour in many cases.

So, citing studies of gamma wave spikes or dreamlike patterns before or at the onset of death is irrelevant to the challenge posed by NDEs. These patients were clinically dead; flatlined EEG, absent cortical function, no measurable activity to support awareness.

Uh-huh

Post in thread 'An Open Letter to Atheists' https://www.sarsfieldsvirtualpub.com/threads/an-open-letter-to-atheists.710/post-143246

Yet they reported highly structured perceptions that were verifiable: describing surgical instruments, recounting conversations, even perceiving events outside their sensory range. That is data.

And here’s the real issue: if your materialist thesis were correct, the absence of brain function should mean the absence of consciousness. Full stop. But that’s not what the evidence shows. Instead, it shows conscious experience precisely when it should be impossible under materialism. That’s why van Lommel’s Lancet study, Parnia’s AWARE trials, and surveys across dozens of countries all converge on the same conclusion: the brain is not the whole story.

The phenomenon of dying-brain spikes has zero explanatory power for cases where consciousness occurs long after measurable activity has ceased. If you don’t understand that distinction, then the only thing on display here is your own confusion.

 

[Tiger]

So you are relying entirely on EEG data, even though we know it has varying sensitivity in confirming brain death.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/B9780444641427000424

For the record, this is your 5th (or is it 6th) complete re-write of this response, pivoting this way and that, scrambling around trying to avoid looking like a spoofer. It's as clear as day that you have absolutely no familiarity with any of the NDE studies and why they are challenging.

As for the paper link above; congratulations, you can paste citations, but unfortunately comprehension remains optional. Literally every reply that you've given so far, demonstrates that you have no idea about any of these NDE cases. There's literally nothing in that paper that undermines the NDE phenomenon.

The paper itself confirms what I’ve been saying: EEG and other neurophysiologic tests are supportive tools, not the definition of consciousness or clinical death. Clinical criteria: coma, absent brainstem reflexes, apnea; remain the gold standard. EEG is neither definitive nor required in most cases; it’s a convenience for equivocal situations.

Here is what you are missing entirely: veridical NDEs occur in patients who meet full clinical criteria for brain death. Pam Reynolds’ brain was drained of blood and cooled to 60°F, her EEG flatlined, yet she reported verified surgical details. Blind-from-birth patients see for the first time. People perceive conversations or events that occurred outside their sensory field. These experiences happen when EEG, perfusion studies, and other ancillary measurements show zero cortical activity, which is exactly when your citations say the brain should be incapable of consciousness.

The current recommendation is to favor blood flow studies (such as CT angiography or radionuclide scans), if possible, along with EEG.

Or MRI.

https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases/brain-death

In short you need a multimodal approach.

Again, yet another demonstration of not being familiar with the subject being discussed and instead tries desperately to pivot; playing with ‘tech specs’ instead of addressing the phenomenon itself. Multimodal EEG, CT, MRI; congratulations, you passed first-year neurology. Meanwhile, patients with flatlined EEGs, bloodless brains, or lifelong blindness are still reporting verifiable perceptions they could not possibly know. imaging doesn’t change that.

You’re not debating evidence; you’re lazily waving gadgets to hide that your materialist dogma can’t explain a single one of these NDEs

The research has moved on.

https://medicalxpress.com/news/2025-04-neuroscientific-death-physiological-pattern.html#:~:text=Psychology%20&%20Psychiatry-,Neuroscientific%20model%20of%20near%2Ddeath%20experiences%20finds%20consistent%20physiological%20pattern,experiences%20often%20reported%20during%20NDEs.

Says the guy who tried to refute all NDEs with research around brain activity with cardiac arrest patients in the 20 seconds before and after death as recently as a few hours ago

The research has indeed progressed; but not in the direction you're suggesting. This article simply references a proposal for a unified neuroscientific model explaining near-death experiences by identifying physiological patterns such as oxygen deprivation, increased carbon dioxide, and disrupted brain energy metabolism. These factors fail to account for the structured, verifiable NDEs reported during periods of absent brain activity.

AWARE came back with AWARE2.

https://www.resuscitationjournal.com/article/S0300-9572(23)00216-2/abstract

"In the cross-sectional arm, 126 community CA survivors’ experiences reinforced these categories and identified another: delusions (misattribution of medical events). Low survival limited the ability to examine for implicit learning. Nobody identified the visual image, 1/28(3.5%) identified the auditory stimulus. Despite marked cerebral ischemia (Mean rSO2 = 43%) normal EEG activity (delta, theta and alpha) consistent with consciousness emerged as long as 35–60 minutes into CPR."

Theres the answer.

Haha - Ah yes, AWARE II: the ‘answer’ you think ends the discussion. Let’s unpack that shall we? - 126 cardiac arrest survivors were studied, and while a new category labeled ‘delusions’ was noted, the key fact is that veridical perception; the actual hallmark of NDEs; was almost nonexistent in this cohort. Only 1 of 28 patients identified the auditory stimulus, and none identified the visual targets. In other words, the study did not replicate the veridical perception cases that are the core evidence for consciousness beyond brain activity.

Furthermore, the mention of ‘normal EEG activity emerging as long as 35–60 minutes into CPR’ is not the same as consciousness occurring in a flatlined, clinically dead brain. These were patients with ongoing resuscitation, not prolonged complete cortical inactivity. You are conflating transient or partial brain activity with the documented NDE cases that occur during total cortical silence, hypothermia, or even drained-brain scenarios like Pam Reynolds.

So your ‘answer’ doesn’t answer anything. It confirms exactly what I’ve been saying: mere brain activity is not sufficient to explain structured, veridical, cross-verified NDEs. The hallmark features; detailed, corroborated awareness when the brain should be incapable of consciousness; remain entirely unexplained by AWARE II. The evidence still stands, and your attempt to wield this study as a rebuttal only highlights your misreading and desperation.

What you need to do; is to actually go and study the subject properly before scrambling around for any link you can google that you think confirms your a priori bias.

 

[AN2]

So you are relying entirely on EEG data, even though we know it has varying sensitivity in confirming brain death.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/B9780444641427000424

The current recommendation is to favor blood flow studies (such as CT angiography or radionuclide scans), if possible, along with EEG.

Or MRI.

https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases/brain-death

In short you need a multimodal approach.



The research has moved on.

https://medicalxpress.com/news/2025-04-neuroscientific-death-physiological-pattern.html#:~:text=Psychology%20&%20Psychiatry-,Neuroscientific%20model%20of%20near%2Ddeath%20experiences%20finds%20consistent%20physiological%20pattern,experiences%20often%20reported%20during%20NDEs.

AWARE came back with AWARE2.

https://www.resuscitationjournal.com/article/S0300-9572(23)00216-2/abstract

"In the cross-sectional arm, 126 community CA survivors’ experiences reinforced these categories and identified another: delusions (misattribution of medical events). Low survival limited the ability to examine for implicit learning. Nobody identified the visual image, 1/28(3.5%) identified the auditory stimulus. Despite marked cerebral ischemia (Mean rSO2 = 43%) normal EEG activity (delta, theta and alpha) consistent with consciousness emerged as long as 35–60 minutes into CPR."

Theres the answer.

He gets all his stuff after it's been filtered through Christian YouTubers, told him that (well, advised against it) ages ago

 

[AN2]

For the record, this is your 5th (or is it 6th) complete re-write of this response, pivoting this way and that, scrambling around trying to avoid looking like a spoofer. It's as clear as day that you have absolutely no familiarity with any of the NDE studies and why they are challenging.

As for the paper link above; congratulations, you can paste citations, but unfortunately comprehension remains optional. Literally every reply that you've given so far, demonstrates that you have no idea about any of these NDE cases. There's literally nothing in that paper that undermines the NDE phenomenon.

The paper itself confirms what I’ve been saying: EEG and other neurophysiologic tests are supportive tools, not the definition of consciousness or clinical death. Clinical criteria: coma, absent brainstem reflexes, apnea; remain the gold standard. EEG is neither definitive nor required in most cases; it’s a convenience for equivocal situations.

Here is what you are missing entirely: veridical NDEs occur in patients who meet full clinical criteria for brain death.

Pam Reynolds’ brain was drained of blood and cooled to 60°F, her EEG flatlined, yet she reported verified surgical details.

Here's a 5-year-old's question.. Why the f*ck would a neurosurgeon kill someone before they operated on them?

Blind-from-birth patients see for the first time. People perceive conversations or events that occurred outside their sensory field. These experiences happen when EEG, perfusion studies, and other ancillary measurements show zero cortical activity, which is exactly when your citations say the brain should be incapable of consciousness.




Again, yet another demonstration of not being familiar with the subject being discussed and instead tries desperately to pivot; playing with ‘tech specs’ instead of addressing the phenomenon itself. Multimodal EEG, CT, MRI; congratulations, you passed first-year neurology. Meanwhile, patients with flatlined EEGs, bloodless brains, or lifelong blindness are still reporting verifiable perceptions they could not possibly know. imaging doesn’t change that.

You’re not debating evidence; you’re lazily waving gadgets to hide that your materialist dogma can’t explain a single one of these NDEs


Says the guy who tried to refute all NDEs with research around brain activity with cardiac arrest patients in the 20 seconds before and after death as recently as a few hours ago

The research has indeed progressed; but not in the direction you're suggesting. This article simply references a proposal for a unified neuroscientific model explaining near-death experiences by identifying physiological patterns such as oxygen deprivation, increased carbon dioxide, and disrupted brain energy metabolism. These factors fail to account for the structured, verifiable NDEs reported during periods of absent brain activity.



Haha - Ah yes, AWARE II: the ‘answer’ you think ends the discussion. Let’s unpack that shall we? - 126 cardiac arrest survivors were studied, and while a new category labeled ‘delusions’ was noted, the key fact is that veridical perception; the actual hallmark of NDEs; was almost nonexistent in this cohort. Only 1 of 28 patients identified the auditory stimulus, and none identified the visual targets. In other words, the study did not replicate the veridical perception cases that are the core evidence for consciousness beyond brain activity.

Furthermore, the mention of ‘normal EEG activity emerging as long as 35–60 minutes into CPR’ is not the same as consciousness occurring in a flatlined, clinically dead brain. These were patients with ongoing resuscitation, not prolonged complete cortical inactivity. You are conflating transient or partial brain activity with the documented NDE cases that occur during total cortical silence, hypothermia, or even drained-brain scenarios like Pam Reynolds.

So your ‘answer’ doesn’t answer anything. It confirms exactly what I’ve been saying: mere brain activity is not sufficient to explain structured, veridical, cross-verified NDEs. The hallmark features; detailed, corroborated awareness when the brain should be incapable of consciousness; remain entirely unexplained by AWARE II. The evidence still stands, and your attempt to wield this study as a rebuttal only highlights your misreading and desperation.

What you need to do; is to actually go and study the subject properly before scrambling around for any link you can google that you think confirms your a priori bias.

 

[Tiger]

Here's a 5-year-old's question.. Why the f*ck would a neurosurgeon kill someone before they operated on them?

Nobody said that a surgeon tried to kill anyone. Pam Reynolds was under a standard hypothermic circulatory arrest, her brain flatlined, yet she still experienced veridical perceptions. Your ‘5-year-old’s question’ simply confirms that you didn’t read about her case.

 

[AN2]

Nobody said that a surgeon tried to kill anyone. Pam Reynolds was under a standard hypothermic circulatory arrest, her brain flatlined, yet she still experienced veridical perceptions. Your ‘5-year-old’s question’ simply confirms that you didn’t read about her case.

Okay, so a doctor didn't do this then -

"Pam Reynolds’ brain was drained of blood and cooled to 60°F"

How did it happen?

 

[Tiger]

Okay, so a doctor didn't do this then -

"Pam Reynolds’ brain was drained of blood and cooled to 60°F"

How did it happen?

Are you denying this happened?

Deep hypothermic circulatory arrest - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Deep hypothermic circulatory arrest(DHCA) is a surgical technique in which the temperature of the body falls significantly (between 20 °C (68 °F) to 25 °C (77 °F)) and blood circulation is stopped for up to one hour. It is used when blood circulation to the brain must be stopped because of delicate surgery within the brain, or because of surgery on large blood vessels that lead to or from the brain. DHCA is used to provide a better visual field during surgery due to the cessation of blood flow.[1] DHCA is a form of carefully managed clinical death in which heartbeat and all brain activity cease.

 

[AN2]

Are you denying this happened?

No, I was asking you how it happened?

Can you not read

Deep hypothermic circulatory arrest - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Deep hypothermic circulatory arrest(DHCA) is a surgical technique in which the temperature of the body falls significantly (between 20 °C (68 °F) to 25 °C (77 °F)) and blood circulation is stopped for up to one hour. It is used when blood circulation to the brain must be stopped because of delicate surgery within the brain, or because of surgery on large blood vessels that lead to or from the brain. DHCA is used to provide a better visual field during surgery due to the cessation of blood flow.[1] DHCA is a form of carefully managed clinical deathin which heartbeat and all brain activity cease.

 

[Tiger]

No, I was asking you how it happened?

Can you not read

Jog on troll.

If you have a point to make, make it, otherwise I will have to ignore your endless questions that go nowhere.

If you have something to say - SAY it.

 

[Haven]

For the record, this is your 5th (or is it 6th) complete re-write of this response, pivoting this way and that, scrambling around trying to avoid looking like a spoofer. It's as clear as day that you have absolutely no familiarity with any of the NDE studies and why they are challenging.

As for the paper link above; congratulations, you can paste citations, but unfortunately comprehension remains optional. Literally every reply that you've given so far, demonstrates that you have no idea about any of these NDE cases. There's literally nothing in that paper that undermines the NDE phenomenon.

The paper itself confirms what I’ve been saying: EEG and other neurophysiologic tests are supportive tools, not the definition of consciousness or clinical death. Clinical criteria: coma, absent brainstem reflexes, apnea; remain the gold standard. EEG is neither definitive nor required in most cases; it’s a convenience for equivocal situations.

Here is what you are missing entirely: veridical NDEs occur in patients who meet full clinical criteria for brain death. Pam Reynolds’ brain was drained of blood and cooled to 60°F, her EEG flatlined, yet she reported verified surgical details. Blind-from-birth patients see for the first time. People perceive conversations or events that occurred outside their sensory field. These experiences happen when EEG, perfusion studies, and other ancillary measurements show zero cortical activity, which is exactly when your citations say the brain should be incapable of consciousness.




Again, yet another demonstration of not being familiar with the subject being discussed and instead tries desperately to pivot; playing with ‘tech specs’ instead of addressing the phenomenon itself. Multimodal EEG, CT, MRI; congratulations, you passed first-year neurology. Meanwhile, patients with flatlined EEGs, bloodless brains, or lifelong blindness are still reporting verifiable perceptions they could not possibly know. imaging doesn’t change that.

You’re not debating evidence; you’re lazily waving gadgets to hide that your materialist dogma can’t explain a single one of these NDEs


Says the guy who tried to refute all NDEs with research around brain activity with cardiac arrest patients in the 20 seconds before and after death as recently as a few hours ago

The research has indeed progressed; but not in the direction you're suggesting. This article simply references a proposal for a unified neuroscientific model explaining near-death experiences by identifying physiological patterns such as oxygen deprivation, increased carbon dioxide, and disrupted brain energy metabolism. These factors fail to account for the structured, verifiable NDEs reported during periods of absent brain activity.



Haha - Ah yes, AWARE II: the ‘answer’ you think ends the discussion. Let’s unpack that shall we? - 126 cardiac arrest survivors were studied, and while a new category labeled ‘delusions’ was noted, the key fact is that veridical perception; the actual hallmark of NDEs; was almost nonexistent in this cohort. Only 1 of 28 patients identified the auditory stimulus, and none identified the visual targets. In other words, the study did not replicate the veridical perception cases that are the core evidence for consciousness beyond brain activity.

Furthermore, the mention of ‘normal EEG activity emerging as long as 35–60 minutes into CPR’ is not the same as consciousness occurring in a flatlined, clinically dead brain. These were patients with ongoing resuscitation, not prolonged complete cortical inactivity. You are conflating transient or partial brain activity with the documented NDE cases that occur during total cortical silence, hypothermia, or even drained-brain scenarios like Pam Reynolds.

So your ‘answer’ doesn’t answer anything. It confirms exactly what I’ve been saying: mere brain activity is not sufficient to explain structured, veridical, cross-verified NDEs. The hallmark features; detailed, corroborated awareness when the brain should be incapable of consciousness; remain entirely unexplained by AWARE II. The evidence still stands, and your attempt to wield this study as a rebuttal only highlights your misreading and desperation.

What you need to do; is to actually go and study the subject properly before scrambling around for any link you can google that you think confirms your a priori bias.

For the record, this is your 5th (or is it 6th) complete re-write of this response, pivoting this way and that, scrambling around trying to avoid looking like a spoofer. It's as clear as day that you have absolutely no familiarity with any of the NDE studies and why they are challenging.

As for the paper link above; congratulations, you can paste citations, but unfortunately comprehension remains optional. Literally every reply that you've given so far, demonstrates that you have no idea about any of these NDE cases. There's literally nothing in that paper that undermines the NDE phenomenon.

The paper itself confirms what I’ve been saying: EEG and other neurophysiologic tests are supportive tools, not the definition of consciousness or clinical death. Clinical criteria: coma, absent brainstem reflexes, apnea; remain the gold standard. EEG is neither definitive nor required in most cases; it’s a convenience for equivocal situations.

Here is what you are missing entirely: veridical NDEs occur in patients who meet full clinical criteria for brain death. Pam Reynolds’ brain was drained of blood and cooled to 60°F, her EEG flatlined, yet she reported verified surgical details. Blind-from-birth patients see for the first time. People perceive conversations or events that occurred outside their sensory field. These experiences happen when EEG, perfusion studies, and other ancillary measurements show zero cortical activity, which is exactly when your citations say the brain should be incapable of consciousness.




Again, yet another demonstration of not being familiar with the subject being discussed and instead tries desperately to pivot; playing with ‘tech specs’ instead of addressing the phenomenon itself. Multimodal EEG, CT, MRI; congratulations, you passed first-year neurology. Meanwhile, patients with flatlined EEGs, bloodless brains, or lifelong blindness are still reporting verifiable perceptions they could not possibly know. imaging doesn’t change that.

You’re not debating evidence; you’re lazily waving gadgets to hide that your materialist dogma can’t explain a single one of these NDEs


Says the guy who tried to refute all NDEs with research around brain activity with cardiac arrest patients in the 20 seconds before and after death as recently as a few hours ago

The research has indeed progressed; but not in the direction you're suggesting. This article simply references a proposal for a unified neuroscientific model explaining near-death experiences by identifying physiological patterns such as oxygen deprivation, increased carbon dioxide, and disrupted brain energy metabolism. These factors fail to account for the structured, verifiable NDEs reported during periods of absent brain activity.



Haha - Ah yes, AWARE II: the ‘answer’ you think ends the discussion. Let’s unpack that shall we? - 126 cardiac arrest survivors were studied, and while a new category labeled ‘delusions’ was noted, the key fact is that veridical perception; the actual hallmark of NDEs; was almost nonexistent in this cohort. Only 1 of 28 patients identified the auditory stimulus, and none identified the visual targets. In other words, the study did not replicate the veridical perception cases that are the core evidence for consciousness beyond brain activity.

Furthermore, the mention of ‘normal EEG activity emerging as long as 35–60 minutes into CPR’ is not the same as consciousness occurring in a flatlined, clinically dead brain. These were patients with ongoing resuscitation, not prolonged complete cortical inactivity. You are conflating transient or partial brain activity with the documented NDE cases that occur during total cortical silence, hypothermia, or even drained-brain scenarios like Pam Reynolds.

So your ‘answer’ doesn’t answer anything. It confirms exactly what I’ve been saying: mere brain activity is not sufficient to explain structured, veridical, cross-verified NDEs. The hallmark features; detailed, corroborated awareness when the brain should be incapable of consciousness; remain entirely unexplained by AWARE II. The evidence still stands, and your attempt to wield this study as a rebuttal only highlights your misreading and desperation.

What you need to do; is to actually go and study the subject properly before scrambling around for any link you can google that you think confirms your a priori bias.

Unfortunatly you have missed the point and gish galloped out a turd of an answer.

So called "veridical" NDE "research" is rife with criticisms focusing on the lack of rigorous methodology, reliance on post-event reports that can be influenced by factors like memory recall and suggestion, the potential for coincidence or ordinary explanations for seemingly paranormal perceptions. Its a shitshow.

In short, NDEs occur due to brain activity between cardiac arrest, and brain death. Thats it.

I have provided you all the evidence to get started. You just have to do some actual work and actually research what is going on in this space.

Near-death experiences after cardiac arrest: a scoping review - PMC

This scoping review aimed to characterise near-death experiences in the setting of cardiac arrest, a phenomenon that is poorly understood and may have clinical consequences. PubMed/MEDLINE was searched to 23 July 2023 for prospective studies ...

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

 

[Myles O'Reilly]

Tiger what do you think of Karoline Leavitt's musings in the aftermath of Kirk's death?

“On the night Charlie was shot, a 4.1 earthquake struck Utah. In scripture, 40 represents trials; 41 signifies a shift. It hit at 5:57 local time, 7:57 Eastern. Acts 7:57 describes Stephen, the first martyr, stoned as the crowd silenced his truth. The Bible says the earth trembles when God is angry. That night, as a voice was silenced, the ground groaned.”

Erm......Tiger???

 

[Tiger]

Unfortunatly you have missed the point and gish galloped out a turd of an answer.

So called "veridical" NDE "research" is rife with criticisms focusing on the lack of rigorous methodology, reliance on post-event reports that can be influenced by factors like memory recall and suggestion, the potential for coincidence or ordinary explanations for seemingly paranormal perceptions. Its a shitshow.

In short, NDEs occur due to brain activity between cardiac arrest, and brain death. Thats it.

I have provided you all the evidence to get started. You just have to do some actual work and actually research what is going on in this space.

Near-death experiences after cardiac arrest: a scoping review - PMC

This scoping review aimed to characterise near-death experiences in the setting of cardiac arrest, a phenomenon that is poorly understood and may have clinical consequences. PubMed/MEDLINE was searched to 23 July 2023 for prospective studies ...

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Haha, Tank; your responses are so feeble that people will genuinely start to think that you’re my sock puppet, created to make me look good.

Do you actually want me to respond/destroy your response?

Is it a genuine reply?

 

[Tiger]

Erm......Tiger???

That query is above my pay grade unfortunately Myles.

 

[Haven]

Pam Reynolds.

Could Pam Reynolds Hear? A New Investigation into the Possibility of Hearing During this Famous Near-Death Experience

Abstract: The well-known Pam Reynolds near-death experience (NDE) occurred at the Barrow Neurological Institute during a medically well-documented period, which is why many people regard it as proof of the reality of a separable immaterial conscious mind. In this article, I use information from...

digital.library.unt.edu

 

[AN2]

Jog on troll.

If you have a point to make, make it, otherwise I will have to ignore your endless questions that go nowhere.

If you have something to say - SAY it.

I think it's important for you to understand that nobody who has a NDE actually dies, Tiger. Which is a cornerstone of your 'soul' bullshine

 

[Haven]

The Afterlife Is in Our Heads

The real meaning of near-death experiences.

nautil.us

Comprehensive article.

 

[Haven]

Parnia AWARE 1 criticism.

AWARE Results Finally Published – No Evidence of NDE - NeuroLogica Blog

Back in May I participated in a debate for Intelligence Squared regarding "Death is not Final." At the time I was updating myself on the published literature regarding alleged near death experiences or NDEs, and noticed that the AWARE study (AWAreness during REsuscitation) had been completed but...

theness.com

 

[Tiger]

Pam Reynolds.

Could Pam Reynolds Hear? A New Investigation into the Possibility of Hearing During this Famous Near-Death Experience

Abstract: The well-known Pam Reynolds near-death experience (NDE) occurred at the Barrow Neurological Institute during a medically well-documented period, which is why many people regard it as proof of the reality of a separable immaterial conscious mind. In this article, I use information from...

digital.library.unt.edu

I would have responded to this yesterday evening, however I was banned.

Tank, the only thing Woerlee proved is that a materialist with no access to the patient, no access to the surgical team, and no access to the records will still write pages of make-believe to defend his faith; and you’ve fallen for it.

Woerlee is notorious for this kind of pseudo-debunking; he didn’t have access to anything associated with the study.

And Chris Carter dismantled him for it. Carter pointed out that Woerlee’s entire case depends on pure speculation; like “bone conduction,” despite the fact that Pam’s ears were packed and ABR monitoring confirmed her auditory pathways were offline. He also highlighted how Woerlee cherry-picked the weakest details while deliberately ignoring the strongest: Pam’s accurate description of the surgical saw she had never seen before, her knowledge of surgical conversations, and the timing of her awareness during deep anesthesia and hypothermic cardiac arrest. These are not trivialities; they’re the whole case.

But instead of facing that, Woerlee weaves just-so stories to preserve materialism. Carter rightly called him out for being driven by ideology, not evidence. In fact, his “explanations” require us to believe in things that neuroscience itself rules out: perception with no cortical activity, auditory awareness with blocked ears, memory encoding when brain metabolism is near zero. It’s absurd.

Response to "Could Pam Reynolds Hear?" [#2] - UNT Digital Library


Tank, if you were familiar with this space you wouldn't have tried to refute evidence with the one “expert” who’s already been shredded by serious scholars in the field.

 

[Haven]

I would have responded to this yesterday evening, however I was banned.

Why am I not surprised?

Tank, the only thing Woerlee proved is that a materialist with no access to the patient, no access to the surgical team, and no access to the records will still write pages of make-believe to defend his faith; and you’ve fallen for it.

Woerlee is notorious for this kind of pseudo-debunking; he didn’t have access to anything associated with the study.

And Chris Carter dismantled him for it. Carter pointed out that Woerlee’s entire case depends on pure speculation; like “bone conduction,” despite the fact that Pam’s ears were packed and ABR monitoring confirmed her auditory pathways were offline. He also highlighted how Woerlee cherry-picked the weakest details while deliberately ignoring the strongest: Pam’s accurate description of the surgical saw she had never seen before, her knowledge of surgical conversations, and the timing of her awareness during deep anesthesia and hypothermic cardiac arrest. These are not trivialities; they’re the whole case.

But instead of facing that, Woerlee weaves just-so stories to preserve materialism. Carter rightly called him out for being driven by ideology, not evidence. In fact, his “explanations” require us to believe in things that neuroscience itself rules out: perception with no cortical activity, auditory awareness with blocked ears, memory encoding when brain metabolism is near zero. It’s absurd.

Response to "Could Pam Reynolds Hear?" [#2] - UNT Digital Library


Tank, if you were familiar with this space you wouldn't have tried to refute evidence with the one “expert” who’s already been shredded by serious scholars in the field.

Rejoinder to Responses to "Could Pam Reynolds Hear?"

Abstract: In this article I provide a rejoinder to Stuart Hameroff's and Chris Carter's responses to my article, "Could Pam Reynolds Hear?" (2011, this issue). I address some specifics of anesthesiology and neurosurgical technique to maintain my contention that Reynolds could hear through normal...

digital.library.unt.edu

Meanwhile, Chris Carter has no medication qualifications whatsoever.

This isnt a debate btw. You are just wrong.

 

[Tiger]

Why am I not surprised?

Rejoinder to Responses to "Could Pam Reynolds Hear?"

Abstract: In this article I provide a rejoinder to Stuart Hameroff's and Chris Carter's responses to my article, "Could Pam Reynolds Hear?" (2011, this issue). I address some specifics of anesthesiology and neurosurgical technique to maintain my contention that Reynolds could hear through normal...

digital.library.unt.edu

Meanwhile, Chris Carter has no medication qualifications whatsoever.

This isnt a debate btw. You are just wrong.

What a hopeless emotional response.

Why don’t you do what you normally do and rewrite it a bunch of times until it’s less embarrassing?

 

[Haven]

What a hopeless emotional response.

Why don’t you do what you normally do and rewrite it a bunch of times until it’s less embarrassing?

Ill take the win, thank you.