This is all based on a claim that has not been supported by evidence in my opinion.
Vince: "My position does not need falsifiability because I am not making a claim."
That sentence in itself makes a claim! You claim to be an atheist. Atheists believe there is no God. Agnostics claim they don't know whether or not God exists. To be meaningful you belief that there is no God needs rational justification. That justification must testable. Yet you see no need why you should be expected to demonstrate why your atheisms makes the best sense of all the relevant data--a basic requirement of scientific theory. To cop out by constantly hiding behind the admission "I don't know" begs the question of whether you should know because you can find out by direct experience.
So consider the best of the NDE ADC evidence. What is the explanation that makes best sense of the evidence when:
(1) A dead and buried son appears to his Dad in an ADC, drives his pickup down a highway, and provides verifiable evidence about his investments made while he was still alive?
(2) Doctors, nurses, and family members present at a deathbed share the dying patient's spiritual journey outside the body, including the encounter with the Being of Light, the greetings by deceased friends and family, and even the patient's past life review?
(3) Dr. Eben Alexander's brain shows no signs of any activity, and yet, in his NDE he rides a butterfly with a reassuring young woman he doesn't know, who later proves to be his sister who died before he discovered her existence because of his early adoption?
(4) Skeptics by the thousands suddenly and for no apparent reason jam churches, where they are willing to spend many hours feasting on God's presence and becoming totally converted to the faith? You claim to have watched the relevant videos and have a prepared alternative interpretation, I'm sure?
You presumably believe in right and wrong. So what makes right actions right? If the answer is social convention or values evolved through natural selection, then the question for you is this: Why shouldn't I harm others if that makes me happy or gives me some advantage and I can get away with it? As an atheist, you have no evidence that there even is right and wrong, apart from social convention which can be disregarded to suit selfish interests. So your atheism is logically consistent with a world of survival of the fittest. You have no rational grounds for a meaningful life apart from your own preferences. \\
Vince: "Theists are making a claim, how can your claim be falsified? I don't see how."
All scholars agree that Paul wrote 1 Corinthians and Galatians, TherePaul connects his list of Jesus' resurrection appearances with eyewitness testimony. There is no reason to believe that both Paul and these eyewitnesses are lying or deluded about what they saw; indeed, what they saw inspired them to seal their testimony with their blood, despite their prior cowardice. If I could be persuaded that Jesus never rose from the dead, I would give up my faith. That's a falsification test. So what's yours?
Vince: "Your insistence that I did not watch the videos seems to be because I don't have the same conclusions you do and that I have some questions that you refuse to address."
No, it is because you don't even claim to have watched the videos indicated and show no evidence of having watched them, e.g. atheist Howard Storm's NDE.
Vince: "Ok, so what? Can he give sufficient evidence for his intelligent designer claim?"
Yes, but to see how you would either need to read Miller's popular book "Finding Darwin's God." or watch a YouTube video where he details his position.