Why I'm an atheist

[qwik2learn]

OP would like to shift the discussion away from his claims. OP will think he's being rational because he is happy with his assumptions and their own consistency.

To be "rational" is generally considered to mean employing logical consistency and deriving appropriate conclusions from acceptable assumptions.

Is this what OP has done with his claims and arguments? I don't think so; I believe that OP has presented arguments from ignorance and used these arguments as unstated assumptions to promote his conclusions.

I must inform you that you present two related arguments from ignorance:
1) The mind is generated by the brain because the brain is so complex that I (Trading) do not understand how the mind can act as a receiver (of consciousness).
2) The mind is not generated by the soul because the idea of a receptor is so simple that I cannot understand how the mind can act as anything but a generator (of consciousness).

I think that you don't want to accept Dr. Parnia's three claims from the AWARE study (see below) and conclude that the mind can exist independent of brain. That is OK; I am sure that as you read more of these references that I am providing, you will have a better understanding of the problems faced by science in explaining consciousness from a purely physical standpoint.

I think that OP has chosen not to engage with these ideas and references because he cannot think clearly and is incapable of intelligently assessing new ideas when presented.

[qwik2learn]

[jerowacik]

since every person is born already destined to have a religion. they must follow the wishes of their parents and ancestors. if they are given the guidance they will convert. it is destiny that can not be refuted.

[BADecker]

since every person is born already destined to have a religion. they must follow the wishes of their parents and ancestors. if they are given the guidance they will convert. it is destiny that can not be refuted.

In other words, we feel free to make choices in life, like what color socks to wear today. But really, it is destiny that has everything programmed. Is that it?

[bbc.reporter]

Interesting thread.

In my becoming an atheist, I do not know how, why or when exactly. But lately I keep bringing up to my brother about god and religion in the exact way as the OP. I would rant and rave sometimes and thankfully, my brother is patient. Then recently my brother said "you're an atheist". I was stunned, and answered back that I still believed in god, but not religion. Then he answered back "you're just saying that to be in a safe spot, but judging from what we talked about, you're an atheist."

Sadly (yes! sadly. I was brought up as a catholic), he's right. I don't believe an a deity. No matter how hard I force myself to believe or "go back" to god, I do not think it's in me anymore. I am simply incapable of believing.

[BADecker]

Some people get a psychological support from family and friends.  Others get it from imaginary friends, aka God(s).

Atheists have a strong understanding of reality around them.  They can distinguish what is real and what is not.

To answer the OP question:

I'm an atheist because I can think critically. 

These days I don't even consider religions worth studying.  They are in the same bucket as dragons, witchcraft, warlocks, ghosts, tarot reading and astrology, among number of other superstitions.

Religions were invented for one purpose: To control and unite large groups of people.

If you could think critically, you would stop being an atheist. Why?


So far, cause and effect is a scientific law, that is upheld by Newton's 3rd Law, which is law because of the billions and trillions of things that happen daily that show that it is fact, and by the fact that nothing has factually refuted it so far. Pure random has never been shown to exist in anything. In fact, the concept of pure random is not really understandable.

Even if science has not formally declared the universe to be complex, we can understand that it is complex, simply through the fact that after decades of research, the medical hasn't been able to cure cancer and heart disease, to say nothing about finding a way to let people live for a mere 200 years.

Even though entropy is extremely complex, the factual understanding about it is that everything is gradually moving from complexity to simplicity. Given enough time, complexity as we know it would not exist. Further, science is having a difficult time determining exactly what nearly complete entropy would be like.


1. If the universe had existed continually forever, without beginning, then entropy would have reduced it to a state of simplicity long ago. We would not exist. Because of this, we can see that there was a beginning.

2. Complex intelligence - such as the intelligence of mankind - is part of the universe. Because it is part of the universe, it is affected by entropy, just like the rest of the universe. This means that formerly, intelligence was greater than it is now.

3. Cause and effect in everything shows that everything was pre-programmed. People are the AI of the universe. The Thing that is behind the pre-programming is intelligent beyond understanding to have been able to pre-program it all, and especially the intelligence of mankind. This great Intelligence fits our dictionary definitions of "God."


There is nothing that is science law that competes with the above. There might be lots of science theory - like Big Bang Theory - that might appear to compete. But even Big Bang Theory doesn't take into account things like intelligence and emotion... doesn't have any explanation for them.

The point is, the strongest part of science - science law - shows that God exists. Don't you think that it is time that you start to think not only critically, but clearly, as well?

[BADecker]

Some people get a psychological support from family and friends.  Others get it from imaginary friends, aka God(s).

Atheists have a strong understanding of reality around them.  They can distinguish what is real and what is not.

To answer the OP question:

I'm an atheist because I can think critically.  

These days I don't even consider religions worth studying.  They are in the same bucket as dragons, witchcraft, warlocks, ghosts, tarot reading and astrology, among number of other superstitions.

Religions were invented for one purpose: To control and unite large groups of people.

If you could think critically, you would stop being an atheist. Why?

I can think critically therefore I am an atheist.

But your next point shows that you are not doing it... at least not with regard to your post here.

So far, cause and effect is a scientific law, that is upheld by Newton's 3rd Law, which is law because of the billions and trillions of things that happen daily that show that it is fact, and by the fact that nothing has factually refuted it so far. Pure random has never been shown to exist in anything. In fact, the concept of pure random is not really understandable.

Randomness and cause and effect are not the same.  Not sure why you are linking cause and effect to "pure randomness".

Exactly. There is no evidence of pure random, which is real random. The general random that you and I use when we roll the dice or flip a coin is not pure random. It is simply evidence of our weakness to understand all the forces acting on the object of our focus.

The universe cannot exist with random pure random activity.

Even if science has not formally declared the universe to be complex, we can understand that it is complex, simply through the fact that after decades of research, the medical hasn't been able to cure cancer and heart disease, to say nothing about finding a way to let people live for a mere 200 years.

Universe is complex. There are multiple causes of cancer: environmental (food, air and water) causes and genetic predispositions.  

Correct. The universe is complex. No argument or disagreement there.

Even though entropy is extremely complex, the factual understanding about it is that everything is gradually moving from complexity to simplicity. Given enough time, complexity as we know it would not exist. Further, science is having a difficult time determining exactly what nearly complete entropy would be like.

Evolution shows that complex organisms evolve from simpler ones.

Math and probability show that evolution is not possible. In fact, evolution is so impossible that it cannot begin to have a setting within the possibility area. See https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1454732.0.

1. If the universe had existed continually forever, without beginning, then entropy would have reduced it to a state of simplicity long ago. We would not exist. Because of this, we can see that there was a beginning.

Big Bang Theory is the only scientific theory we currently have for the beginning of our universe.

Perhaps. But why look to theory, which is guesswork, when what I am showing you here proves the existence of God?

2. Complex intelligence - such as the intelligence of mankind - is part of the universe. Because it is part of the universe, it is affected by entropy, just like the rest of the universe. This means that formerly, intelligence was greater than it is now.

Not sure I understand.  You are saying that entropy has something to do with intelligence.  I do not see a link.  You are making a mental leap and not explaining it.

All I am saying is, since intelligence is a complex thing that is within the universe, entropy is reducing the complexity of intelligence just like it is reducing the complexity of everything else. In other words, over time, intelligence is diminishing.

3. Cause and effect in everything shows that everything was pre-programmed. People are the AI of the universe. The Thing that is behind the pre-programming is intelligent beyond understanding to have been able to pre-program it all, and especially the intelligence of mankind. This great Intelligence fits our dictionary definitions of "God."

No.  There is no evidence that anything was pre-programmed.  You are pulling this assumption straight out of your you know what.

Cause and effect, a scientific law that exists in everything, is evidence of the pre-programming in action.

There is nothing that is science law that competes with the above. There might be lots of science theory - like Big Bang Theory - that might appear to compete. But even Big Bang Theory doesn't take into account things like intelligence and emotion... doesn't have any explanation for them.

The Big Bang Theory does not deal with intelligence or emotions of sapiens.

Exactly. But since there is intelligence and emotion in the universe, where does it come from? After all, if they didn't exist at the time of the Big Bang, entropy would keep the complexity of intelligence and emotion from ever existing. So, why are they not figured into Big Bang Theory? BB is greatly flawed.

As an example. There are 3 major BB theories. There are 4 major Black Hole theories. Yet none of the Black Holes from the BH theories could fit in any of the BB universes. They simply don't sync. It's all guesswork. Fun to play with if you like juggling math and physics. But a waste of time if you are looking for something solid in life.

The point is, the strongest part of science - science law - shows that God exists. Don't you think that it is time that you start to think not only critically, but clearly, as well?

No. Science does not show that God exists.  Quite the opposite is true.

My above explanation is exactly why science shows that God exists.

Entropy shows that there is a beginning, and that everything is becoming less complex since the beginning.

Cause and effect show that every little thing exists according to the way the thing(s) that caused it to exist moved it. And each cause was caused by some other cause, which was caused by some other cause... all the way back to the beginning.

Whatever could set the cause and effect of this complex universe into motion, must be very complex in itself. Since there is intelligence in the universe, cause and effect caused the intelligence to exist. Whatever could cause this whole thing including the intelligence, necessarily had to be even more complex. Why? Because entropy is reducing the complexity of everything, even intelligence.

Something that is great enough and intelligent enough to program the universe into existence fits our definition of the word "God."

[BADecker]

No, you are not showing that science shows that God exists.  Entropy and complexity are unrelated.

Entropy is the breaking down of complexity through dispersal, dissipation, and diffusing, etc.

The primal cause did not have to be complex.  The intelligence is the neural network in the brains of animals.  Primal cause did not cause the intelligence to exist during BB.

However, we see it no other way. Since entropy is the breaking down of complexity, it is also the breaking down of complex intelligence. During all the time that has existed, entropy has been breaking down the complexity of intelligence.

This is scientific law. Everything to the opposite is speculation.

Entropy is not related to complexity or intelligence.  You want proof?  Software behind everything you touch everyday is becoming more complex every year, yet entropy of the universe is declining.  Entropy and complexity are two different things.

This is only the direction of focus of mankind. Mankind is becoming less intelligent. Because of this he has to find something that can hold intelligence in place for him. He is designing the computer for this. Multiple millennia ago, mankind was more intelligent and did not need computers. So, he never designed them.

Hint: Universe is expanding...

What does this mean? We don't know that there is not a limit. We don't know that the universe of space isn't a set thing that is simply extremely gigantic. "Expanding universe" without explanation of whatever you are talking about by the term is meaningless.

Anyway, you are a typical Christian religiotard, no fault of your own.  Probably your parents are to blame.

So, here you are, finding no answer, turning to name-calling.

I hope you see your own logical fallacies (entropy=complexity, complexity=intelligence).

Thanks for the good wishes. I return them. However, entropy is the breaking down of complexity, intelligence or otherwise. So you see? Not only are you having a hard time of thinking, but it has caused you to barely be able to read.

[popcorn1]

Because a dirty bishop just got sacked for covering up abuse cases..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-GJ1ygbM04..        PEDO VICARS..

Also these young kids prayed to god and god let the vicar abuse them..
WHAT TYPE OF GOD IS GOD?..Not very powerful or very evil which is it?..

RELIGION IS EVIL

Or maybe god answered the vicars prayers by bringing all these kids to abuse?

[BADecker]

Because a dirty bishop just got sacked for covering up abuse cases..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-GJ1ygbM04..        PEDO VICARS..

Also these young kids prayed to god and god let the vicar abuse them..
WHAT TYPE OF GOD IS GOD?..Not very powerful or very evil which is it?..

RELIGION IS EVIL

Or maybe god answered the vicars prayers by bringing all these kids to abuse?

When people of all sorts and types ask God to be outside of their lives and away from Him, doing their asking by the way they live when they are at peace and in prosperity, why would He suddenly jump into their lives to save them when they changed their minds and asked for help one time?

The fact that troubles in life are being researched, and ped troubles are being brought out into the open for scrutiny, shows that God is answering their prayers according to their faith in Him... not on the spot, because they don't have that kind of faith, but overall, in the expanse of time, because He is a just God, and is answering both of the prayers, the prayers of action asking Him to be out of their lives, and the prayers of thought and voice asking Him to protect them.

[Trading]

Some people get a psychological support from family and friends.  Others get it from imaginary friends, aka God(s).

Atheists have a strong understanding of reality around them.  They can distinguish what is real and what is not.

To answer the OP question:

I'm an atheist because I can think critically. 

These days I don't even consider religions worth studying.  They are in the same bucket as dragons, witchcraft, warlocks, ghosts, tarot reading and astrology, among number of other superstitions.

Religions were invented for one purpose: To control and unite large groups of people.

No argument from me on your points.

Who created god? (even if god existed, logically, it couldn't be god himself).

Religious men? Possible. Clearly, some saw god, or members of his divine family, after eating mushrooms with psilocybin, drinking a lot or smoking something with similar effects.

But, probably, the men that created most of the gods weren't religious. They knew too much about their own inventions about the gods to believe on them.

Religion's creation has been a matter of imagination (sometimes, with a little bit of inspiration by mushrooms, heavy drinking or other intoxicators), but religion's subsistence is a matter of gullibility (with a little bit of will to believe).

Of course, believers have all legitimacy to believe on what they want, provided that they don't threat other people for not believing.

Actually, any peaceful believer will have my full support to keep believing against any contrary governmental or individual coercive action.

It's a matter of principle: I also think smoking is an absurd thing to do (you are paying to involuntarily kill your self), but also smokers have my full support against any arbitrary repression of their smoking habits.

[Trading]

Interesting thread.

In my becoming an atheist, I do not know how, why or when exactly. But lately I keep bringing up to my brother about god and religion in the exact way as the OP. I would rant and rave sometimes and thankfully, my brother is patient. Then recently my brother said "you're an atheist". I was stunned, and answered back that I still believed in god, but not religion. Then he answered back "you're just saying that to be in a safe spot, but judging from what we talked about, you're an atheist."

Sadly (yes! sadly. I was brought up as a catholic), he's right. I don't believe an a deity. No matter how hard I force myself to believe or "go back" to god, I do not think it's in me anymore. I am simply incapable of believing.

Welcome to the Atheist's Club.

Being an atheist is more or less obvious, once we disregard what other people tell us without having a clue about what they are talking about, since they just repeat what other people (on the same situation) said to them or wrote.

The problem are the questions we have to answer once we realize that; for the good or the bad, we don't have an immortal "soul" or a celestial big brother.

I tried to address one or two of those questions here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1221052.40

[Trading]

OP would like to shift the discussion away from his claims. OP will think he's being rational because he is happy with his assumptions and their own consistency.

To be "rational" is generally considered to mean employing logical consistency and deriving appropriate conclusions from acceptable assumptions.

Is this what OP has done with his claims and arguments? I don't think so; I believe that OP has presented arguments from ignorance and used these arguments as unstated assumptions to promote his conclusions.

I must inform you that you present two related arguments from ignorance:
1) The mind is generated by the brain because the brain is so complex that I (Trading) do not understand how the mind can act as a receiver (of consciousness).
2) The mind is not generated by the soul because the idea of a receptor is so simple that I cannot understand how the mind can act as anything but a generator (of consciousness).

I think that you don't want to accept Dr. Parnia's three claims from the AWARE study (see below) and conclude that the mind can exist independent of brain. That is OK; I am sure that as you read more of these references that I am providing, you will have a better understanding of the problems faced by science in explaining consciousness from a purely physical standpoint.

I think that OP has chosen not to engage with these ideas and references because he cannot think clearly and is incapable of intelligently assessing new ideas when presented.

I think you know perfectly well that you are a religious person not because of those insignificant cases mentioned on that "aware study" you quoted Ad nauseam. Those cases are just a pretext you present to try to "substantiate" your beliefs. You believe because you want to believe. You have no legitimate factual ground to believe.

I also would like to have an immortal "soul" (I would seriously dispense the god, but if he was the price to pay for eternity, as Unamuno, I could even tolerate at least some gods).

Henry IV of France, faced with the need to convert to Catholicism to be king, said, "Paris is well worth a mass". I guess I could say that eternity is well worth a god, if he wasn't too annoying.

But I try very hard to avoid mixing what I would like and reality. I don't think you do that. Your will to believe blinds you.

[qwik2learn]

But I try very hard to avoid mixing what I would like and reality. I don't think you do that. Your will to believe blinds you.

I believe merely because of my desire to believe? Actually, you may be surprised to learn that I acquired my beliefs by extensive research and careful examination of observations according to the scientific method, primarily using "A Field Guide to Critical Thinking", which is a popular skeptical treatise on evidential reasoning (the opposite of blind belief).

Your assertion that my beliefs have no factual basis is obviously false. I am convinced that you are the one who is not willing to engage with the new ideas that I am presenting, so therefore you are irrational, and not I. So I hope that we continue our discussion, and we will use our reason to see what is fact and what is not, for I certainly believe that two thinking heads are better than one.  

I will first compare your claims with one who has actually reviewed the literature in this field:
Braude says that more conclusive evidence of veridical perception during NDE is required and that it is NOT YET "irrational" to NOT believe in the survival of the personality. While atheist critiques of NDE are certainly irrational (NDEs cannot be explained by brain chemistry alone), Braude's claim by itself appears to be acceptable, but Braude's position is not nearly as extreme as yours; you are saying that there is "no legitimate factual ground to believe" in the survival hypothesis, but this is obviously false; the near-death page has 52 references to scientific (factual) evidence including:
No matter what the nature of the NDE, it (factually) alters lives (unlike hallucinations and dreams)
Other anomalous (factual) phenomena supports an afterlife
Quantum theory supports concepts found in NDEs (facts of reality relating to other facts of reality)

Actually, there are many lines of evidence that have brought me to my conclusions: an important line of evidence is The top cases demonstrating the survival of the human personality after the demise of the physical body. There are many other reasons, for example I am inspired by the writings of eminent researchers (like Godel, Turing, Pasteur, etc.) who have also thought about these topics extensively. Other researchers from the recent past and present are also a big source of inspiration; for example, on the TV series "Ancient Aliens" you will find a wealth of fascinating discussions that are virtually always based in factual observations and historical records, likewise with the "censored" TED talks of Sheldrake and Hancock and the documentary "Krishna: History or Myth", and also this scholarly paper (and this one) which present an example of how to think critically about communication, to name but a few sources that I have evaluated. Additionally, I have presented Hammeroff's review of evidence from quantum biology (see the Huffington Post articles: "Which came first: feelings or the brain?" and "An open letter to Richard Dawkins and Michael Shermer"), but even that level of empirical observation and evidence does not suffice for you; you seem to ignore it just like the AWARE study and other examples mentioned. I think you should evaluate the sources for yourself; there is use in trying to convince THIS believer (I use reason, and was once a committed atheist), but if you cannot evaluate the new ideas that I am presenting, then you are simply believing what you already believe because of your desire to deny reality by NOT THINKING about something new and profound.

"It is strong confirmation of any theory that proofs converging from many and varying classes of phenomena unite in establishing it."

As I said, I am open for discussion via video chat or telephone, in case you would like to engage in a more rapid exchange of ideas.

[popcorn1]

But I try very hard to avoid mixing what I would like and reality. I don't think you do that. Your will to believe blinds you.

I believe merely because of my desire to believe? Actually, you may be surprised to learn that I acquired my beliefs by extensive research and careful examination of observations according to the scientific method, primarily using "A Field Guide to Critical Thinking", which is a popular skeptical treatise on evidential reasoning (the opposite of blind belief).

Your assertion that my beliefs have no factual basis is obviously false. I am convinced that you are the one who is not willing to engage with the new ideas that I am presenting, so therefore you are irrational, and not I. So I hope that we continue our discussion, and we will use our reason to see what is fact and what is not, for I certainly believe that two thinking heads are better than one.  

I will first compare your claims with one who has actually reviewed the literature in this field:
Braude says that more conclusive evidence of veridical perception during NDE is required and that it is NOT YET "irrational" to NOT believe in the survival of the personality. While atheist critiques of NDE are certainly irrational (NDEs cannot be explained by brain chemistry alone), Braude's claim by itself appears to be acceptable, but Braude's position is not nearly as extreme as yours; you are saying that there is "no legitimate factual ground to believe" in the survival hypothesis, but this is obviously false; the near-death page has 52 references to scientific (factual) evidence including:
No matter what the nature of the NDE, it (factually) alters lives (unlike hallucinations and dreams)
Other anomalous (factual) phenomena supports an afterlife
Quantum theory supports concepts found in NDEs (facts of reality relating to other facts of reality)

Actually, there are many lines of evidence that have brought me to my conclusions: an important line of evidence is The top cases demonstrating the survival of the human personality after the demise of the physical body. There are many other reasons, for example I am inspired by the writings of eminent researchers (like Godel, Turing, Pasteur, etc.) who have also thought about these topics extensively. Other researchers from the recent past and present are also a big source of inspiration; for example, on the TV series "Ancient Aliens" you will find a wealth of fascinating discussions that are virtually always based in factual observations and historical records, likewise with the "censored" TED talks of Sheldrake and Hancock and the documentary "Krishna: History or Myth", and also this scholarly paper (and this one) which present an example of how to think critically about communication, to name but a few sources that I have evaluated. Additionally, I have presented Hammeroff's review of evidence from quantum biology (see the Huffington Post articles: "Which came first: feelings or the brain?" and "An open letter to Richard Dawkins and Michael Shermer"), but even that level of empirical observation and evidence does not suffice for you; you seem to ignore it just like the AWARE study and other examples mentioned. I think you should evaluate the sources for yourself; there is use in trying to convince THIS believer (I use reason, and was once a committed atheist), but if you cannot evaluate the new ideas that I am presenting, then you are simply believing what you already believe because of your desire to deny reality by NOT THINKING about something new and profound.

"It is strong confirmation of any theory that proofs converging from many and varying classes of phenomena unite in establishing it."

As I said, I am open for discussion via video chat or telephone, in case you would like to engage in a more rapid exchange of ideas.

Have you ever had magic mushrooms or LSD..Not saying your off your head ..
Well I am really but what i mean is when you take these drugs you see all kinds of things that your mind could never of dreamed of..
So explain how my mind made up things you never seen before?
Now when your dying your body will send signals to your brain your badly hurt or in danger of dying..And if your out cold you will be dreaming that your going somewhere like home or to heaven
to mum dad god what ever your dreaming of..
As everyone on there death bed had a NDE answer no..
I know because it's happened to me I seen myself i floated up spun around and floated out of the room down the shopping mall and just before i got out the door on to the street i woke up with people all around me..My heart stopped and they brought me back to life in the dentist..
Now remember this i was on gas at the time..So could it also be because people are on some sort of drug when lying in hospital or dentist..
And we all have a brain they are the same the work the same?

So now get back to being an atheist only wasting your time..
And when you die you will know for sure then..Yes i know you wont be able to tell anyone but you  will know?
Plus imagine if there was an after life WHY WOULD IT BE GOD..Not just what humans do when we die?..
Worship EARTHALON..It will save your life and your future generations lives...

RECYCLE YOUR PLASTIC  You want to go to Earthalon 2 then recycle your plastic much more important than praying..Praying helps no one recycling helps everyone

Also ever thought about when people get there heads chopped off by guillotine your suppose to see your body while your heads on the floor..
Now do you know anybody who as had there head cut off and had it sown back on and told you if this is true..?
Do you know anybody who died for lets say 2 weeks and come back and told you there is an after life..
Also when you sleep you dream..guillotine was used in the past and people would say the head would looks at it's body..Old wives tale or was it? just the same as an after life?
Or we could turn into ORBS there will always be a scientific answer not god

[qwik2learn]

Now when your dying your body will send signals to your brain your badly hurt or in danger of dying..And if your out cold you will be dreaming that your going somewhere like home or to heaven

Not true, that is an ad-hoc explanation, or a "just-so story". Atheists have deathbed experiences and near-death experiences just like everyone else does. A high level of consciousness while physically unconscious is medically unexplained.

Many NDEs occur while the NDEr is under general anesthesia - at a time when any conscious experience should be impossible. While some skeptics claim these NDEs may be the result of too little anesthesia, this ignores the fact that some NDEs result from anesthesia overdose. Additionally, descriptions of a NDEs differ greatly from those people who experiences "anesthetic awareness." The content of NDEs occurring under general anesthesia is essentially indistinguishable from NDEs that do not occur under general anesthesia. This is more strong evidence that NDEs occur independent from the functioning of the material brain.

It would help if you read the near-death evidence page for more info:
http://www.near-death.com/science/evidence.html#a50

[popcorn1]

Now when your dying your body will send signals to your brain your badly hurt or in danger of dying..And if your out cold you will be dreaming that your going somewhere like home or to heaven

Not true, that is an ad-hoc explanation, or a "just-so story". Atheists have deathbed experiences and near-death experiences just like everyone else does. A high level of consciousness while physically unconscious is medically unexplained.

Many NDEs occur while the NDEr is under general anesthesia - at a time when any conscious experience should be impossible. While some skeptics claim these NDEs may be the result of too little anesthesia, this ignores the fact that some NDEs result from anesthesia overdose. Additionally, descriptions of a NDEs differ greatly from those people who experiences "anesthetic awareness." The content of NDEs occurring under general anesthesia is essentially indistinguishable from NDEs that do not occur under general anesthesia. This is more strong evidence that NDEs occur independent from the functioning of the material brain.

It would help if you read the near-death evidence page for more info:
http://www.near-death.com/science/evidence.html#a50

We have had this before but your in another name Your trying to get me to believe in your space god ..Come on you know i know it's you..
You are wasting your time you will never have proof of an after life that's for when you die..
believe in my god Earthalon it will save your life..
Your body can produce a drug like affect without drugs..
When your sick you can go dizzy like being drunk? and you had no alcohol at all

[qwik2learn]

You are wasting your time you will never have proof of an after life that's for when you die..

Disagree: Some have already died and came back, and the perceptions they had while unconscious were later verified. Their experiences indicate that there is an after-life, at the least it indicates that mind is independent from brain!

There is also this:
The top cases demonstrating the survival of the human personality after the demise of the physical body:
http://www.aeces.info/Top40/top40-main.shtml

[Moloch]

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Near-death_experience#Evidence_of_afterlife

[qwik2learn]

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Near-death_experience#Evidence_of_afterlife

http://www.near-death.com/science/evidence.html#a52

patients who really were close to death were more likely than those who were not to report an enhanced perception of light and enhanced cognitive powers. The claim of enhancement of cognitive functions despite the likelihood that brain function had probably become disturbed and possibly diminished, deserves further investigation.