Hyperactive Brain May Create "Near Death" Visions

This seems like one of those, 'Well, duhh..' results.

People who are skeptical about an afterlife will just have their notions confirmed by this, and likewise people who believe in an afterlife will conclude that a supernatural influence is affecting the brain at the moment of death. Both sides can walk away happy.

A new study says the brain is likely responsible.

The alternative explanations are ? Given that the statements involves recollection, I suppose the brain might be involved somewhere along the way.

Too true.

The brain is an elaborate piece of equipment with all sorts of internal subroutines, error detection systems, analytical apps and creativity. It perceives "reality" as the stuff that comes in via external-to-internal sensors and loads of 'bus wiring. Actually the converse is true, and the external stuff is an illusion created and interpreted via its input image table and brought on by lack of sleep.

No-one who has watched the film "The Matrix" could say otherwise...

My guess is that stories of the afterlife began as efforts to console those grieving. It would be fair to say I'm fairly skeptical of most unfalsifiable claims relating to the various 'invisible voyeur in the sky' mythologies that are all the rage about once a week for some and twice a year for others.

I want to make my opinions on the subject known, so that no one mistakes my criticism as just a reaction to the conclusions conflicting with my world view. The findings would generally support my views, but none the less, that is some remarkably crappy research. .

Claiming to have experentally verified the absence of supernatural influence by noting the occurrence of some natural phenomena is absurd....

This is an elaborate set up for a straw argument whether intentional or otherwise.

Aside from the {nitpick} fact that nonetheless is written as a single word, (an adverb), meaning: "however; or, nevertheless", which is ALSO written as a single word... it appears you have unwittingly requested the following tidbit of enlightenment, in your (plural writing faux pas):

"I'm fairly skeptical of most unfalsifiable claims relating to the various 'invisible voyeur in the sky' mythologies..."

and: "Claiming to have experentally....

"One can assume that you ACTUALLY meant "falsifiable claims", because WHY ON EARTH would anybody contest "unfalsifiable claims"...(!?!)

With regard to your spelling "experentally", it is a challenge to ascertain whether you were attempting to make a profound point regarding the multitudinous attempts to experimentally prove-or-disprove the existence of the supernatural, or...whether you were trying to put-together a reference to the multitudinous experiences to which so many others have been witness (i.e., did you mean to use "experientially")?

True believers are sincerely sad for those who have chosen their own reasons to "refuse" their Creator's unfailing Love.Throughout history, there have been repeated examples of avowed atheists who, intent on *proving* their own case, took-on the challenge of proving that the Holy Bible is nothing but 'bunk'...and they have been converted into True Believers because of the Truths that they found.

Those who are unwilling to either ACCEPT their own infinitesimalness and unwillingness to either forgive or to accept (divine) forgiveness, compared to the Creator's omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence, and omnibenevolence, will continue forever turning a blind eye to the miracles that do, indeed STILL OCCUR (YouTube of Anita), even in this day and age, in every country all around the globe.

One small example is certainly not expected to "make-the-case", nor is it expected to change anyone's mind.

However, I would insert, here, that MANY have been witness-to honest-to-goodness "supernatural events". And, too, many more have either the desire, the innate ability, or an intrinsic need to possess, exhibit, and enjoy their faith in the "unlimited reservoir" of all that IS 'supernatural'.

And anyone so bold as to advertise his own rejection of faith (or, if I may coin the expression, "counterpoisedly" delineating their 'faith' to be in numbers and formulae), that person had better be equipped with all the proofs necessary to seal their case.... (that is, IF they expect to 'get-away-with' making statements as though they are axiomatic, addressing the object of billions of people's faith as being a "myth".)

[ Actually, you *may* get-away with making such statements, so long as they address the innumerable idols and such that ARE, in FACT, mere myths. There exists only ONE object of faith (in the supernatural, if you will), which IS as REAL and uncontestable as Julius Caesar or Shakespear himself... and the rest serve ONLY to distract the world from finding the Way, the Truth, and the Light. ]

I'm extracting two quotations from this unreadable mishmash.

"True believers are sincerely sad for those who have chosen their own reasons to "refuse" their Creator's unfailing Love."

"And anyone so bold as to advertise his own rejection of faith..."

We unbelievers do not "refuse..." There is no evidence that this Creator exists, therefore, there is no such love to refuse. If there is no Creator, there can be no faith to reject. We neither refuse or reject, we accept the absence of anything to consider.

So sorry that you are unable to read ...

And , there is PLENTY of "evidence", such as you suggest does NOT exist.

There are plenty of researchers (even among those at some of those most prestigious facilities, upon which I am sure you entrust ALL of your 'faith') who, as new discoveries are made, become ALL-THE-MORE convinced that everything that we have learned points to "intelligent design".

Tis all-too-easy to be a 'naysayer', and turn one's head aside and scoff. It takes courage to look at all the evidence with an open mind, because it will 'convict you'.

Please excuse my typing errors, I am limited to a 'smart' phone keyboard for the present time. I also want to thank you for your advice on spelling. I'm glad that you are able to understand something as cryptic as 'none the less' is probably intended to mean 'nonetheless'.

You were incorrect about my use of unfalsifiable. It was exactly what I entended. It seems appropriate to respond in the tone you initiated so, .... WHO ON EARTH would be silly enough to base their theme mythology on falsifiable claims? That doesn't qualify as a belief, it is just a scientifcally valid hypothesis. Beliefs of the mythology type are voluntarily restricted to the realm of things which cannot be proven false (nor proven correct). So go stand in your appropriate corner. Its the corner with the dragons, demons, zombies,and assorted other claimed with no proof entities.

I'm fully prepared to support my position (even if on a smart phone keyboard). While I won't say the bible is completely useless, I also wouldn't say books like 'Humpty-dumpty' or 'The Three Little Pigs' are completely useless either (even if other stories are more consistent, the bible still gets a pass).

I will invite you to explain some problems with the story line of your favorite book....perhaps like the multitudes you referenced being converted before me, your explanation will exercise the logic and reason right out of me so that I might join as a tue believer.....

There are so many inconsistencies in both the new and old testaments, it would be too easy for the debate to get lost in the minutia.So lets focus on something central to your belief system. Let's discuss this idea about God paying for your sins (sins you hadn't yet committed) by giving up the life of his only begotten son. A son, by the way, that he didn't have prior, and it seems was made just fpr this purpose...

Okay, so jumping right out at me as a big missing piece of the puzzle....Who is thia debt being paid to? I know God has been claiming he is the most powerful and also the only, but if that's the case, why get so insistent, jealous,angry, vengeful?

Anyway wouldn't the entity twisting Gods arm for payments over future sins.....let's just call him God's Bookie....wouldn't that entity be the one with power or at least be in the running?

More importantly, if you are relying on the belief that you are being kept out of the pit of fire because Jesus exchanged his life in payment, doesn't it make you a little uneasy that he supppsedly came back to life...even eternal life. Certainly that qualifies as rescinding the contracted payment......which obviously leaves your eternal soul dangling.

Surely a devinely inspired work wouldn't have left such glaring errors. This work isn't written nearly as well as many books by mortal writers. If you have to believe in some deity that you claim is all knowing, at least attribute words to that deity that demonstrate knowledge of how to write well. Otherwise suspending disbelief is just too onerous.