Yes, I know what Calvinists believe. It's not based on evidence. It's based on their interpretation of the Bible which is mostly fiction. Please see: https://www.evilbible.com and https://skepticsannotatedbible.com

This thread topic is "not based on evidence" either.

Did you watch the video and read the research paper in the first post on this thread? Are you saying that they don't count as evidence? If so, why don't they count as evidence?

Did you watch the video and read the research paper in the first post on this thread? — Truth Seeker

No.

Are you saying that they don't count as evidence?

Yes, of course (or at least not as relevant and sufficient "evidence"^^).

If so, why don't they count as evidence?

As I've already stated:

Resuscitation is not resurrection^^ (or reincarnation). Death is irreversible brain decomposition^^. Unless 'dis-embodied subjectivity' (i.e. flat earth) is the case, "NDE" or "RED" cannot be anything but a false memory illusion. — 180 Proof

."Clinical death" indicates the limit of (available) medical interventions for reviving a patient and not [relevant and sufficient evidence^^ :point:] the terminal stage of a patient's morbidity.

I understand what you mean. In the video, the doctor said that the patient was able to read the doctor's thoughts even though he never verbalised the thoughts. How could this have happened? Assuming the doctor is telling the truth, doesn't that count as evidence for something extraordinary?

I wouldn't assume that's true. An extraordinary claim requires extraordinary evidence. Anecdotes ain't good enough for me, Seeker.

I am conflicted about whether to accept anecdotes as evidence. It's not always possible to have concrete evidence. This video is an anecdote of a man who woke up in a morgue during his autopsy. I don't know if this story is true or not. I don't have any way to assess the claims. The narrator claims that the story has been medically verified but does not present any evidence of the verification.

Waking up during an autopsy is problematic, unless it had only just begun, and blood was seen to ooze from the incision - in which case, the pathologist would immediately stop and look for life-signs.
I knew a man who woke up in the morgue. (and lived to egret it) This was in the 1950's, when medical science was less sophisticated. The man was a crane operator, hit by a cable whiplash. The majority of his bones were broken. It took many years and surgeries to reconstruct him, and he was never free of pain. But he didn't bring back any stories from Beyond.

He woke up as soon as the first incision was being made on his abdomen. No video of the event is shown. It's just someone narrating the story. I don't know if they were telling the truth or not. So sorry about the crane operator's injuries and pain.

He woke up as soon as the first incision was being made on his abdomen. — Truth Seeker

That makes me skeptical. The standard post mortem begins with a Y incision: diagonal cuts from each shoulder to the tip of the sternum, then a straight line down to the pubis, or a modified Y, which starts under the ears. And it hast to be a deep incision, so that you can retract the skin flaps and underlying fat for access to the body cavity.

I've never known a pathologist start with the abdomen; bowels are the least valuable organ in determining cause of death. The only reason I can think for why one might is if it's a limited post, following unsuccessful abdominal surgery or a gun shot wound. Sometimes the next of kin refuse consent for a full autopsy, but we still need documentation of what happened, to learn from a mistake in technique or treatment and to preserve evidence for legal proceedings.

Allegedly, this happened in 1976. The experiencer was hit by a car and was left in the morgue for three days. He became a pastor after his NDE.

Allegedly, this happened in 1976. — Truth Seeker

Sure, they didn't have the same equipment then to determine whether 'life is extinct'. The morgue is kept very cold, and that slows down all biological processes. But it doesn't explain the autopsy incision. Perhaps he actually started showing some signs of life, and they were using peritoneal irrigation to warm him up. They would also have to examine the effects of whatever first aid measures had been applied immediately after the accident.
In any case, such a narrow escape, whether you experienced a conversation with St. Peter or not, often prompts people of wavering conviction to renew their faith and show gratitude.

I agree.