Guardian angel saves baby

[Esquilax]

That's because the so-called free-thinkers are anything but. It is the same situation for NDE''s. The best evidence by the most serious researchers provides compelling proof, but they won't have any of it. There are more than a dozen natural "explanations" for NDEs and they are all inconsistent, speculative, and do not account for all the phenomena.

Yeah, and the religious explanation isn't at all inconsistent- funnily enough, NDEs always seem to confirm the religion of the person having them, not some consistent religion- or speculative- you certainly don't have any evidence of an afterlife, making the explanation... speculative- and account for all the phenomena- except for the real ones when NDES are tested and the people experiencing them fail to have any awareness of things they should be, if they had truly left their body.

In the best efforts of researchers has turned up no evidence of an afterlife, or god, or anything like that. You can't turn to the research when (you think) it confirms what you believe- and don't think we missed that you didn't cite any research, you just asserted it was there, as usual- and ignore this entirely pertinent point.

When presented with evidence for something that doesn't fit their small minded box of how the world should work they will accept anything, however speculative, to deny that maybe, just maybe, the world is a little more rational than suggested by materialism. They're indigenous hypocrites at worse and willfully ignorant at best.

Chad, you don't present evidence. You never present evidence. You do just what you've done here, just what I criticized all the theists in this thread for, when you avoid the real conversation that could go on here in favor of fiat assertion and petty, condescending grandstanding.

But you aren't in an intractable asshole contest, you're in a thread discussing the supernatural, and now you're in fact lying, because as I've already pointed out, atheism does not deny the supernatural, we just need more evidence than the rhetorical tricks ("they're just close minded!") you use in place of evidence, in a petty attempt to poison the well rather than provide anything substantial.

The only point you've had from atheists thus far is that aggressive condescension isn't an argument, and literally every theist in here seems incapable of seeing a difference between the two. You're all just embarrassing yourselves, but you're too smugly stuck up your own asses to see it.