Like the title says, this is going to be a rant. Like some of my other stuff, I've recently posted about this on Reddit to get it out of my system. The unexplained-mysteries forum have occasionally discussed the topic of consciousness survival and the afterlife, and the pseudo-skeptics on there regularly respond by desperately clinging to materialism and old attempts at debunking the evidence. In this thread, you can see that the pseudo-skeptics aren't here, funnily enough. Seems they just glossed over this content (which I highly suggest watching)... John Cleese and Dr Jim Tucker on reincarnation I've only found two references as of writing this to the work of Tucker and Brian Weiss, including this one. There is very little reference to prominent NDE researchers outside of the most surface-level ones: Raymond Moody, Peter Fenwick, Sam Parnia and Eben Alexander. Most of the time, they just trash on Alexander, unaware that IANDs had debunked the articles claiming to have debunked him. The 'skeptics' on there include the following, the majority of whom are still active and spreading misinformation about NDEs: name removed: Acts like a troll when confronted with arguments and evidence that contradicts his nihilistic worldview, and completely ignores points made by other proponents. He dismisses genuine mediumship as well. Last time I checked, he still thinks NDEs are caused by DMT in the brain, despite the fact that's been practically falsified by this point. These articles cover why the DMT hypothesis doesn't work: Does DMT Model the Near-Death Experience? The problem with the DMT explanation for NDEs.... name removed: Genuinely thinks it's 'illogical' to think NDEs point to the survival of consciousness because 'we've drawn similarities between NDEs and drugs before', completely ignoring the many differences between drug hallucinations and NDEs that have been pointed out in the past. He also seems to dismiss or just not know about the many cases of verified paranormal phenomena in NDEs. He also claims that Bernardo Kastrup's views, based in philosophy and neuroscience, are 'irrelevant' because he's 'not a physicist', like they're supposed to be the only experts on consciousness or something. Ironic, considering by that logic, Sean Carroll doesn't have the qualifications to be discussing consciousness either. name removed: The worst of them all. This guy is just an awful person, full stop. His many comments resort to petty, childish insults and demeaning comments towards proponents of the afterlife, despite the evidence. He constantly claims consciousness is produced by the brain and yet rarely cites studies supporting this, instead assuming (like so many materialists do) that correlation (with brain activity and consciousness) means causation, which is a logical fallacy. He seems completely unaware of the evidence for non-local consciousness and the flaws in the materialist model of consciousness as well. I've seen very little from him or others on his side on the hard problem of consciousness as well. He just seems preoccupied with verbally abusing anyone who dares to criticise him or materialism and worshipping those who don't want to address all the evidence. He also attacks researchers such as Moody and Fenwick for being 'idiots' without looking any further into any of their work. He instead worships pseudo-skeptics like Sean Carroll, Steven Novella, Laurence Krauss and even Richard Dawkins, all of whom have been criticised for their methodology and mindsets towards this. He's particularly a fan of Carroll, claiming he's a 'good scientist'-I'm pretty sure a 'good scientist' doesn't proudly admit that they aren't interested in looking at the evidence for the afterlife that threatens their worldview. He also says Sam Parnia is the only guy researching these scientifically with his AWARE studies...and yet doesn't seem to realise that Parnia usually leans on the side of consciousness survival, as do most of his colleagues. He's critiqued their materialistic explanations of NDEs before. I wouldn't mention anecdotal testimony to him either: he hates that because it's 'not enough for him'. He doesn't care if you've had a personal experience-he only trusts himself and those who adhere to his worldview. I'd also like to add that after doing some digging, they're really behind on afterlife evidence and research, particularly NDEs. There are no mentions of the research of Bruce Greyson, Penny Sartori, Jan Holden, Jeffrey Long, Kenneth Ring, Melvin Morse etc. For Sartori, there was this thread in which she was featured in a video...and the contents of the video weren't even discussed. She wasn't even mentioned by name! What happens when you Die | Researching NDE What's worse is that I've seen some users cite the RationalWiki like it's a reliable resource (it isn't) when criticising proponents. There are also no mentions of anomalous and extraordinary NDEs, such as those covered in the book The Self Does Not Die, and no references to arguments in favour of non-local consciousness, such as those presented in Irreducible Mind. I also couldn't find anything on terminal lucidity, veridical deathbed phenomena and specific veridical NDEs such as: the Pam Reynolds case (yes, I'm serious, they haven't even brought that up once on the entire forum from what I saw), Anita Moorjani's miraculous recovery (mentioned in passing but wasn't addressed), those born blind who saw during NDEs, the dentures man case etc. A list of profound NDEs can be found here: Near-Death Experiences of the Exceptional Type It feels wrong targeting specific users, but the misinformation and cynicism towards NDEs and other afterlife evidence needs to stop, as does their bullying and mocking or proponents an researchers like ourselves. This is honestly the worst supposedly 'neutral' forum I've ever seen discussing this topic, rarely remaining civil past a few of comments and often straying off topic. The added cherry on top is that some of them still genuinely think that an 'afterlife' is wishful thinking-I think it's been well-established that oblivion is wishful thinking from those who also fear death. I would highly appreciate it if this post or even just my points could be shared with Skeptiko and Psience Quest ASAP, since they do reference interviews by these sites (I'm unable to myself unfortunately). Funnily enough, they don't seem that bothered in discussing the forums themselves and what they have to say.name removed, for example, cited an interview with pseudo-skeptic names removed, but as far as I'm aware, he didn't mention the thoughts of the forum on the topic, who rightfully criticised name removed attitude and approach. Some criticisms of him can be found in this thread, among others:references removed Well, I've said what I needed to say. I do hope Skeptiko's forum and Psience Quest are made aware of this. I'd like to see their responses, and this forum's of course. I'm just disgusted by the behaviour of the pseudo-skeptics on this forum, and how they even get upvoted for their comments while other proponents often get shouted down or name-called by these arrogant bullies. The confirmation bias there is through the roof.