atheists have a stupid theory about people hallucinating elaborate afterlife stories when they die

it's a fact. people often experience elaborate afterlife stories when they die. they're called near death experiences. these are either people experiencing the afterlife, or they're people hallucinating elaborate afterlife stories. this latter point is the only thing that is a rational possibility that an atheist can claim. but it's a far fetched stupid theory. i've seen atheists try to claim people dont experience elaborate afterlife stories when they die, but there's no other way to describe it. they died, clinically. they're not hallucinating random imagery like aliens or fractals or something like a drug trip. no drug causes consistent elaborate afterlife stories for people. what i'm saying is especially true for the exceptional examples. visit nderf.org to get an idea of the basic and exceptional examples. even the basic examples are afterlife stories to some extent. but even if it was just the exceptional examples we used, it's still right to call the situation as people experiencing elaborate afterlife stories when they die. 

this isn't even looking at the strong scientific evidence for why near death experiences are probably authentic afterlife experiences. 

it's irrational to say people arent commonly experiencing elaborate afterlife stories when they die. it's a stupid, but admittedly possible, theory to say they're just hallucinating all these stories so consistently. it's at the very least a big mystery as to why they would just hallucinate all this, to which atheists have no good answer, and most of the time their ideas are irrational or incoherent. i expect lots of irrational nonsense from atheists in this thread.

i concede it might be better to describe it as people experience elaborate afterlife stories, around, the time they die, as i acknowledge it's possible they hallucinate before or after they die. but as a matter of wording, it's accurate to say people commonly experience elaborate afterlife stories when they die. 

Nothing accurate about any of it.....A "stupid theory" perhaps.

As far as it can be known, hallucinating is function only relative to life and  viability.

If one is able to recall and recount near death experiences, then one is clearly not dead, and the body mass has remained viable throughout.

In short.....One either dies, or one doesn't.

And  theists are pretty good at irrational nonsense themselves. (See above).

It's not stupid, dmt could very well be the explanation for NDEs

Death, in a medical sense, is when the heart stops beating and cuts off blood to the brain.
This means the brain’s functions also stop and can no longer keep the body alive.
The brain’s cerebral cortex — the so-called “thinking part” of the brain — also slows down instantly, and flatlines, meaning that no brainwaves are visible on an electric monitor, within 2 to 20 seconds.
This eventually results in the death of the brain.

Have you ever considered that the people... aren't dead? Their brain I mean - if they have an "afterlife experience" that happens to exactly correlate with their ideas of what the afterlife is like - why isn't is just more likely that they imagined something? That their brain couldn't handle not being able to function and repressed the memories of blackness  - you do know that happens all the time with traumatic experiences, right? 

Right...

Some atheists have this problem. Not all of us do.   

Yet, given we don't believe that life continues past death, the only think that makes sense is that the chemicals in our brains are causing us to recall things that don't actually happen. Think of De Ja Vu  for instance. This is the phenonmenen that occurs to people which makes them think they are experiencing something they have not actually experienced before - due to chemicals. 

It's not common for theists to say that it's possible for Pink Unicorns to exist. Even though that's an "obvious possibility".

Does this do any other than suggest an unlikely possibility?

Though, are there scales  of possibility.....Measuring from obviously possible, to not so obviously possible, all the way to obviously not possible.

Afterlife and Pink Unicorns......Though reasonably common to say.....Nonetheless, not obviously possible....Perhaps hovering somewhere between the not so obviously possible level and the obviously not possible level.

it's hard to find any experiences that include imagery like Allah and hindu gods. at least, i strongly doubt you can find very many. i found one that had black figures in it, and the person assumed they were indian gods..... but i considered that their interpretation. there's still not many non christian NDEs and there's many christian NDEs. 

it's also worth noting, that the large majority of atheists dont just come back from the experience not believing in God... the large majority switch and end up believing in God and the afterlife. so they dont see what they expect, which is nothingness. 

there are no specific reasons for believing in unicorns or any of that. there are lots of reasons to believe in God and the afterlife. your argument is like that of the flying spaghetti monster... it makes a point, but it's a very superficial and weak point. 

maybe if people died and experienced unicorns, i might change my mind. or, if they prayed to unicorns and then things that looked supernatural happened to them, then i might change my mind. 

Cause and effect and reason

The cause is primary and unknown and the effects are experienced and the reasons can be variously categorised under GOD.

And the universe is vast, so unicorns are just as possible as a floaty about bloke.

And the flying spaghetti monster, illustrates a point.

And the habitual transfer of data is what it is.

For a few hours every day, every human on the planet experiences vivid and elaborate hallucinations whilst unconscious.

It’s almost if our brains have some innate or inherent ability to make us perceive complex and vivid scenarios - often relevant to both our own beliefs and the things we have recently experienced - whilst the conscious parts brain is turned off, wouldn’t you say?

why are folks experiencing specifically afterlife stories when they die? atheists have no answer to that. they also can't explain why it happens at all? why it's\ more real than dreams or waking life? why do those who experience an NDE almost always believe in the aferlife when it happens? dreams dont change anything about what i think about reality, much like watching a TV show doesn't change anything. 

this thread is a great example, of why atheists are irrational

As a atheist i believe when we die we go to a place where ummm. 

A place that i am going to call " heaven  " 

I feel it would be good. 

And as atheist i know full well that what happens when one dies. Is not a question FULL STOP

For know one, not No how could ever possibly know what happens when one dies.

Whereas the theistic lot seem to some how know.  WITH BEYOND GREAT DETAIL.

What happens when one dies.   

But ummmmm yeah.

Thats cool.

Good game.

Good game.

You've painted GOD with a thick as coat of paint. 

Ya just dipped it in, no wipes , and just smeared it on  coat after coat. 

That's god. 

For a kid to start looking for something.

GOD is there. 

He is a religious group god.  

How could we ever possibly know God is corn. 

We can't. 

So thanks for that. 

And do not Priests and Pastors claim the same?

 All extremely biblically contradictory is it not? The only consistency I have found with the bible is that it makes a mockery of itself persistently;

for did not god himself  say:

 "for no man may see me and live.”  Exodus 33:20  King James Version

Huh, not to veer off-topic but that article you cited for the thread reminds me of a news story where a woman's amygdala was overloaded with electrodes. She said she had extreme feelings of depression so she asked neuroscience psychologists to kill her because she did not care what would happen to her. 

"Otherwise, the large majority of atheists' would've converted."

the majority of atheists do convert and believe in God after the experience. it's for sure a majority, but i'm not sure if it's a large majority based on various stats i've heard. just read the experiences and 'questions and answers' at nderf.org and you will get the impression that the large majority end up believing in God. almost all of them, in any case, end up believing in the afterlife. 

Remember that religion was developed as an opiate for such a poorly designed world.

the experience is good evidence of the afterlife. i might be inductive reasoning but it's still good evidence. the fact that atheists just write it off and pretend there's no evidence for God or the afterlife, is because they lack good judgment and critical thinking skills. it's plausible to be agnostic on the issues, but to reject it all outright as atheists do, is irrational given the evidence. 

Do you mean like Albert Einstein?  “The word God is for me nothing but the expression of and product of human weaknesses"

I have read both of your posts twice

I don't understand how you can arrive at the conclusion that rejecting induction is irrational. Induction only yields reliable results. I think that's where it ends: reliable results. It neither tells you of any cause-and-effect, especially in matters of faith. 

Am I irrational if I reject Islam despite knowing the fact that it reliably produces billions of similar-minded muslims?

do you agree that it's a stupid theory for atheists to just assume people hallucinate elaborate afterlife stories when they die?

why do you think atheists have such stupid ideas? why do they have this deep seated need to disbelieve? 

if i see an alarm ringing, i infer that someone set it. i guess you might say we deduce that someone set it. but if you boil it down to the most essential thing philosphically... we infer it. it's the same thing with near death experiences. we see people die, and then they come and tell us of the afterlife. it's like going to the south pole and seeing penguins, and then trying to claim that you dont believe they're there unless you see it with your own eyes. near death experinces are good evidence for the afterlife. to try arguing that people hallucinate eleboarate afterlife stories when they die, and then give no good reason for why they do so, is as stupid as it comes.  

Well, no...you see people NEARLY die, strictly speaking. I mean you only hear these stories from people who were in the hospital, or choking, had time to consider it, right? Have you ever heard the near death experiences described by someone who has been hanged, or shot in the back of the head? 

Do you believe all living creatures have the self-preservation instinct at the most basic level? If so, then a version of this may explain the 'hallucinations.' Near death, particularly a prolonged death, the brain experiences a severe lack of oxygen. As it tries to trigger the survival mechanism, it accesses things that the brain in question considers important above all: things that inspire the dying to fight on. Like images of your children, even if they're grown. Or images of religious iconography (Hindus never hallucinate Jesus, right?). Or anything that might make the brain draw one last breath, because maybe that one will be the one that moves the needle from "dead" to "alive." This makes more sense than 'it's an afterlife, has to be!' for a number of demonstrable reasons. One, we know that living organisms, particularly sentient ones, want above all to survive, we see this behavior in the animal kingdom all over the place. Two, the lack of a single version of this experience (unless there are multiple afterlives) would lead us to think it's at least in part informed by an individual's life and what's in it. In other words, if someone has no pets, stands to reason that no pet would show up in their death throe struggles. If someone's never heard fof Jesus, we don't expect Jesus to show up in their NDE reports. 

You're doing the popular "claim IS evidence" conflation. You need to claim there's an afterlife, then demonstrate there is. I get that you think an accusation is a form of evidence, but it's an exceptionally soft form.