Two scenarios that may/may not happen.

[Little Rik]

You really think that a dead brain is able to put together such experiences that even after years and years are remembered in a sharp and vivid way?

Sorry Poss but every thing is real.
Real people, real accidents, real death certified by real doctors real come back to life and real reports of what the person involved did see validated by those who were present during the NDE.

Unfortunately atheists try their very best to dismiss these NDEs but the evidence is against them.  

NDE are near death experiences, not brain dead experiences. !

Call them the way you most like Poss that will not make an inch of difference.
Brain off therefore the consciousness take over.
End of the story.  

[possibletarian]

NDE are near death experiences, not brain dead experiences. !

Call them the way you most like Poss that will not make an inch of difference.
Brain off therefore the consciousness take over.
End of the story.  

That's the point, the brain was not 'off' as you put it, clinically dead does not mean 'brain dead' I.E: the brain is still functioning.

[The Grand Nudger]

The trouble with this line of argumentation is that it asserts precisely what the example is supposed to be demonstrative of.  To further clarify the trouble..let;s suppose for a moment that in at least some cases a meaningful cessation of brain function occurred. Let's assume, further, that at least some of those cases (neccessarily a smaller subset of an already specific subset) cannot be reduced to a failing brain......

Even in those cases, is there some specific reason to assume that the experiences described took place during that loss of function..rather than directly before loss of function, or directly after it's resumption?

[Little Rik]

You guys don't get it.

Once the brain doesn't receive any more blood and oxygen the consciousness has no more reasons to stay in the brain.
Would you stay in your car when the fuel doesn't get in the engine anymore?
The engine is probably hot for sometime so that trick you to believe that there is still some activity.
What activity?
Activity my foot.    
And as far as the consciousness is the boss and the boss has left the brain then the brain is totally unable to do anything.  
Nil, zero, nothing that is why the NDE can not come from the brain.  

[Harry Nevis]

NDE are near death experiences, not brain dead experiences. !

Call them the way you most like Poss that will not make an inch of difference.
Brain off therefore the consciousness take over.
End of the story.  

Yeah, because Little Prick here is an ignorant bastard, who, being so proud of the fact, can't posit a idea with any semblance of logic or thought.

[Aegon]

You guys don't get it.

Once the brain doesn't receive any more blood and oxygen the consciousness has no more reasons to stay in the brain.
Would you stay in your car when the fuel doesn't get in the engine anymore?
The engine is probably hot for sometime so that trick you to believe that there is still some activity.
What activity?
Activity my foot.    
And as far as the consciousness is the boss and the boss has left the brain then the brain is totally unable to do anything.  
Nil, zero, nothing that is why the NDE can not come from the brain.  

Are you literally 12?

[The Grand Nudger]

You guys don't get it.  

Once the brain doesn't receive any more blood and oxygen the consciousness has no more reasons to stay in the brain.

Okay then, why does it?  Why do these people return from the state you insist they were in to tell us the tale? More perplexingly, how?

[The Reality Salesman01]

science demands that any hypothesis be falsifiable, there is a small chance that the theory of Evolution may be turned upside down, but as I said, this is just a hypothetical situation. So, based on that, does it follow that the creation story in the Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) is true? Would your atheism be "shaken" if such far stretching hypothetical situation ever became a reality? And why?

 It's kind of a necessary feature for an idea or proposition to have, now isn't it? Falsifiability? If there is no difference between a proposition that is false, and a proposition that is true, then what's the point?  Now, carry that thought into your question and imagine what it would take to prove that all creation spontaneously appeared with the clap of divine hands. What would this evidence look like? Would it be a complex thing such as an elephant, or even a banana, atomizing into existence without any natural pre-existing cause? I suppose it would have to be. And it would have to occur in such a way that could rule out any natural explanation; which brings us back to the problem of whether or not such a thing is falsifiable.  Could there be any way to distinguish an elephant that is brought into existence out of nothing from an elephant that SEEMED to come into existence from nothing?

second issue regarding Christ's existence.  I'm less enthusiastic to accept the claim that Jesus never existed. A good number of historians agree that he lived, also considering what I learned so far about history at university, we can't be 100% sure, after all, history is subjective. History is based on records from people who have their own agendas and biases, and it is a fact that they chose what or include and not include in their writings, it doesn't follow that something didn't happen or a person didn't exist just because some writings don't include such event or person. Also, there are chances that in the future we may find a good and reliable evidence for people that believed never to have existed. Therefore, it is safe not to be so "sure." What do you think of such argument?

Some people think Socrates may not have existed, and that he was just a character Plato created to star in his dialogues. I don't really care...I still like reading it. But I also don't have any special beliefs attached to Socrates. As for Jesus, I was raised Christian, and whether or not Jesus actually existed has never been a question that had much meaning to my transition away from the faith.  In my experience, Christians seem far too entrenched in their beliefs to be bothered by the challenge to Jesus' existence. The important point is, if he lived (and lets just assume he did)--was he brought back to life after he died, and were his claims about God true?  If you believe that those things are true, then whether or not he actually existed will not be a question you are likely to entertain; and if you're not convinced, it's just not an interesting question.

You're right, time could provide more concrete evidence of his existence; but the important questions would still lack justification.  Is there any evidence to support a person being killed and then resurrected? Is there evidence of these resurrected people levitating into space and transcending into a nonphysical realm such as "heaven"? What is "nonphysical"? Is there evidence of the god that this Jesus describes? Is there any logical coherence between reality and the description of what Jesus says his God's wants/abilities/needs/plans? These are far more impactful questions that, once answered (or not) render Jesus' actual existence rather uninteresting, at least for me...

[Succubus]

You guys don't get it.  

Once the brain doesn't receive any more blood and oxygen the consciousness has no more reasons to stay in the brain.

Okay then, why does it?  Why do these people return from the state you insist they were in to tell us the tale?  More perplexingly, how?

Aye, it is indeed curious that these stories of the afterlife are from people who are still alive.

[The Grand Nudger]

Wouldn't it be so much more curious if they came from the dead?