Mega-Thread: Contrary and Confusing Claims about Parnia, Greyson and more?

Ok, so my take away from this is that I should at least try focusing on skeptical studies rather than comments.

Just to add, everyone who attempts to study this/these phenomena should be a sceptic. Sceptic, in the true sense
of the word, open minded and unwilling to draw hasty conclusions. 

All of the authors of the prospective NDE studies were initially sceptical. Sabom, (first study) was a sceptic' and was initially very reluctant to get involved.

The irony is, sceptics profess to support the investigation of the phenomena, as long as the 'conclusion' doesn't upset their preconceived ideas.

Ok, so my take away from this is that I should at least try focusing on skeptical studies rather than comments.

Just to add, everyone who attempts to study this/these phenomena should be a sceptic. Sceptic, in the true sense
of the word, open minded and unwilling to draw hasty conclusions. 

All of the authors of the prospective NDE studies were initially sceptical. Sabom, (first study) was a sceptic' and was initially very reluctant to get involved.

The irony is, sceptics profess to support the investigation of the phenomena, as long as the 'conclusion' doesn't upset their preconceived ideas.

I’ve come to the conclusion that the term sceptic - or, rather the American spelling of Skeptic - has become just another label adopted by that body of opinion which has also hijacked the terms “humanist”, “rationalist”, “critical thinker” and others you all know well. It now represents a dogma rather than a method of enquiry. Its use is meant to place those it describes on the intellectual high ground and, conversely, anyone who disagrees with them are automatically relegated to the ranks of the superstitious and gullible. 

To be considered a Skeptic (rather than someone who is sceptical of a particular claim) is to be placed among those who, for example, “love science”, demand evidence and “do the math”. Of course the unsaid inference is that you and I are incapable of scepticism, hate science and ignore evidence.

I’ve come to the conclusion that the term sceptic - or, rather the American spelling of Skeptic - has become just another label adopted by that body of opinion which has also hijacked the terms “humanist”, “rationalist”, “critical thinker” and others you all know well. It now represents a dogma rather than a method of enquiry. Its use is meant to place those it describes on the intellectual high ground and, conversely, anyone who disagrees with them are automatically relegated to the ranks of the superstitious and gullible. 

To be considered a Skeptic (rather than someone who is sceptical of a particular claim) is to be placed among those who, for example, “love science”, demand evidence and “do the math”. Of course the unsaid inference is that you and I are incapable of scepticism, hate science and ignore evidence.

Was it Richard Dawkins who suggested they call themselves “brights” or something like that?

Was it Richard Dawkins who suggested they call themselves “brights” or something like that?

Yeah, that was one I deliberately left out because it is so ridiculous. I seem to remember the term got some traction and was adopted by some groups. To me it shows immaturity and insecurity. What concerns me more, however, are the aggressive activists - people such as the Wikipedia guerrilla skeptics.

What concerns me more, however, are the aggressive activists - people such as the Wikipedia guerrilla skeptics.

I'd thrown in the aforementioned militant atheist YouTubers out there, many of whom now are resorting to clickbait titles/thumbnails, discussing popular topics and conspiracy theories and even using social media aimed at younger, less mature audiences such as Discord and TikTok to get attention.