I don't know if they're real or not. They're fascinating, though. As a theist, I'm sympathetic to theistic explanations, yet I know that Ketamine can produce almost the same sensation. I cited the Lancet study to show that science does not have the final word on NDE's. It's a common belief that NDE's have been reduced to G-force experiences or oxygen-deprivation.
No one is talking final word or proof. I am talking the evidence overwhelmingly supports god beliefs are of mythical creatures.
You are suggesting there is some evidence NDEs counter my claim there is no evidence supporting gods are real beings. I don't see it. I see what you have presented as only making a case for science not thoroughly understanding the neurological mechanisms of NDEs.
When someone reads the message that can only be seen from the ceiling in a well designed study of NDEs, only then will you have anything supporting true out of body experience. There is nothing in any of the evidence you have suggested here that supports anything other than a brain centered experience.
Depends on how you define "myth". If you mean "a person or thing having only an imaginary or unverifiable existence", and reality is theistic, then you are wrong from the get-go. If reality is idealistic in the Berkelian sense, you are verifying God's existence every time you observe something. In short, you can't make this sort of claim without getting into some pretty deep metaphysics. But I think you're using myth in another sense.
Zeus, Pele, Ra, Ramtha, Thor.... there is a very long list of very well established god myths.
You said
I'm addressing the claim that God is "untestable". If a theist predicts that prayer will make them feel God's presence, prays, and reports they feel God's presence, does that qualify as "testable"? Is the claim "physical matter exists" testable, and is that belief based on an interaction with actual physical matter or the result of other factors?
We've had page after page discussions of this where people claim that the conclusion about what a feeling is, is evidence that is what the feeling is. The feeling is the evidence. What it is evidence of, is the conclusion. It is not evidence of gods, it is evidence people have sensations they interpret as gods.
This is a discussion about the scientific process. It is not a discussion about other levels of evidence such as has been claimed about the "feeling gods' presence".
All beliefs are "made up". The question is, is there evidence to support the belief and does the belief correspond to reality?
There are beliefs based on testable repeatable evidence. That would be beliefs based on the scientific process. These beliefs change when the evidence supports other conclusions. We know the conclusions are supported by the evidence because they are successful. The scientific method produces successful results.
Why are those the only two options? God can be defined as untestable because God is believed to be... untestable. Many theists believe God is not the sort of thing you're going to be able to test for. Do you think it possible that reality consists of unverifiable things? Or does your view of reality assume everything in it is capable of being proven?
Theists fit the evidence to the belief. In this case because following the evidence does not support the belief, you are describing manipulating the process. Prayers are not effective, fine, I'll just change my definition of god and say god doesn't want the test to show prayers are effective.
You can go round and round twisting the evidence and the process to maintain a god belief. That is fitting the evidence to the conclusion and is bad science.
There is lots and lots of evidence god beliefs are made up. There is no evidence god beliefs arose because people interacted with real gods. The question here is
why are we ignoring that evidence and not applying it to current god beliefs?
I agree that nobody should feel pressured to keep quiet about something. If scientists think that belief in the afterlife is just a myth from the old days, they should feel free to speak their minds. Plenty do. Is there evidence that scientists are being stifled by theists from the major sects?
Are you kidding? Of course some theists are actively fighting scientific discoveries. But that is not what I am talking about here.
I am talking about the fact that
the pattern of past god beliefs says a lot about current god beliefs. And if a belief can be shown to be imaginary in nature, that says something about the imaginary thing not existing.
Proof is not needed that the thing does not exist to say the evidence supports it not existing. I don't have to disprove gods exist by testing every single god belief to say, the evidence consistently supports gods are mythical beings.
