Not quite sure how it's not thoughtful. Pseudo-skeptics are driven by the belief that their thoughts on these matters are evidence based and rational. Because there doesn't seem to be a difference between serious proponents and serious skeptics on intellectuality, it is equal to assume that both can fall prey to belief-based motivated reasoning.
Materialism and the like also has its emotionally gratifying reasons to belief. A life lived where you don't have to bear the consequences of your actions? That sounds amazing to me! I don't have to think about what my purpose in life is, or why I'm here? So amazingly simple and easy! I get to avoid asking all the hard, confusing questions and can make thousands of a priori assumptions about evidence that contradicts my views? All right! I get to live a life without doubting my belief system? Oh, the security blanket I shall gain!
I have stated this before, and I will probably state it again ( since it seems comprehesion skills on this subforum are somewhat lacking ): to disbelieve in survival and psi is much more emotionally and intellectually gratifying than to believe such things exist. Has it crossed your mind that if an afterlife should exist, it wouldn't be rosebuds and lollipops? That we must repeat this endless cycle of pain and stuggle for all eternity? That complacent boredom may kick in after about your 100^100th year of existence and you can do nothing to get out of the endless cycle of existence? How do any of these things sound emotionally gratifying to you? Doesnt it sound much more simple and nice to just not exist? No pain, no memories.
So you accusing of people accepting evidence for an afterlife and psi as motivated reasoning has come back to bite you in the ass. Its your worldview that's the easy way out, that requires us to answer less questions, and seems so much more pleasant than having to deal with the dread of doubt.
I, however, can understand that pseudoskeptics feel the need to be intellectually superior to people though. I'd imagine a life of trying to get people to listen to your ideas, only to be laughed and scoffed at because of the sheer silliness of them is lost upon the psuedoskeptic. I'd imagine at that point, the only logical psychological barrier would be to assume that everyone else is just simply putting up psychological walls, and letting their feelings overtake their intellect. The sad part is, this isn't just a psuedoskeptic tactic. Look at pastors of megachurhces who condemn homosexuals to hell, only to engage in secret homosexual acts? They're so passionate in pointing out things that they perceive as wrong in other people, that they fail to notice those same qualities in themselves. And when they're called out, they still maintain the belief that they are in fact not gay, but were seduced by the temptations of the devil!
I'd imagine this is what it feels like to be a psuedoskeptic today; so accusatory of cognitive biases to realize the massive amounts of mental roadblocks to evidence that they themselves contain.
Was that enough of a comeback for you? Or did I present a position that will be automatically filtered out by the cognitive biases you claim psuedoskeptics don't have?