Prove it

For my whole life I have been surrounded by superstitious people. They all have grand claims to make in their paranormal stories but not one of them can own up to their claims.

So here I ask anyone who believes in anything paranormal to provide empirical evidence which can be scientifically tested. So far not 1 out of the 6 billion+ people have been able to do this.

I concluded a while back that most people who accept paranormal claims usually don't have a well rounded scientific education or they are weak in critical thinking.

So go ahead and provide your evidence for ghosts, psychics, souls, telepathy, new age medicine, etc etc.

If you can't provide any evidence or find anyone who can don't you think it is kind of silly to accept the claims.


Also using witness testimony will not stack up not even in the court of law, well not by itself. Hearsay is also not sufficient.

I could go on about things like how the brain can easily fool your senses but I will let you all go first.

Just make a claim and provide sufficient evidence. If the evidence really is there I will admit I am wrong and you can become well known for being the first person to prove a paranormal event. If I or anyone else feels skeptical of the claim then there will be posts criticizing it.

James Randi is offering a prize of US $1,000,000 to anyone who can demonstrate evidence of any paranormal, supernatural or occult power or event, under test conditions agreed to by both parties.

So what are you waiting for don't you want that 1 million dollars?

umm ok....

so what your saying is to prove that ghosts exists. first off prove to me that ghosts DO NOT exist. starting now. and if you fail i will dangle you above a pool of sharks. with freaking lasers mounted on their heads.

The burden of proof lies with the one making the claim. I am asking anyone who makes the claim of anything paranormal to provide evidence.

You should know that it is unintelligent to try to reverse the roles. It is impossible to prove a negative. If something does not exist then there will be no evidence left behind. If something exists in the universe it will leave material effects behind.

So I ask anyone here who thinks paranormal things exist to provide evidence. I mean there is a one million dollar prize and so far no one has won it.

Wrong forums bro, trust me. You can check out other threads here where I try to be the voice of reason and sometimes even tell people the naturalistic explanation for the phenomena they think is supernatural (I do it out of boredom). The thing is, you won't get anywhere. Sure, they have no evidence, but to them experiencing the phenomena is evidence enough of the paranormal. The natural explanation is not sexy enough to sway these people.

Hear hear!!

[size=10]...like trying to convince Christians that God does not exist...[/h]

I know that it is practically futile but it just surprises me that people can be so gullible. I have backed someone into a corner before and that usually results to them trying to play the victim saying I am ruining their fun.

I guess some people must believe in something supernatural or the world is boring to them. Although to me the natural explanation of the universe is interesting enough.

It's not that believing in paranormal things is wrong it's just that the type of behavior can be dangerous. People who are willing to accept claims with no evidence will make it easier for others to control. You can't have a free society without an educated population and science is sorely lacking in most of the public especially where I live in America.

Even without caring about someone's educational background in science people still seem to lack knowledge in critical thinking. They usually form an idea or belief and don't care about the opposing side's view. Any evidence presented which contradicts their views is ignored.

You might say what is wrong with just letting people be the way they are? I would reply that it is not that the belief itself that is dangerous it's the actions carried out because of that belief.

For example, last time I watched tv their was show on the TRU channel that had investigators in a crime using psychics to try to track down evidence. They could be wasting precious time by using an unscientific method to their investigation.

If you want to see the results of the one sided biased approach all you have to do is watch Fox News or shows on the channel like Bill O'Reilly or Glenn Beck.

Yea, I know about all that already. But this just isn't the place for preaching science and evidence; no one listens.

Oh well I can try at least ^^

Answer to topic: Prove me wrong?



Now, I know what you mean dude, I've done my share of loling against some of the people here who believe the most dumbest of things and expressed my sceptisism in many, mostly sarcastic ways.


Now, this is what I'm getting to.

First of all, you say that there are no scientific proof of the existance of the paranormal, that the people believing in this stuff are uneducated. I just wonder, what scientific proof do you have of the fact that the paranormal Do Not exist? I bet you have none. "The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.", ever heard that saying?

Since it's quite impossible to get any scientific proof of whether these paranormal exist or not, I think it is you who are quite "weak in critical thinking", since you dismiss these theories and believes without any proof. You can not take an complete stand against something and say "this is not true" without having any evidence, foolproof evidence to back you up.

The belief of ghost and shit alike go many hundreds, thousands of years back, many recorded in books and stuff alike, and there's a lot of people who say that they have witnessed these things. Ofc this is no real evidence of any paranormal existance, but then again, as I said before, it is ignorant to talk in any absolutes without having any proof that you also demand in return for Your belief.


Lol, and fuck no, if I ever find proof of paranormal existance I want more than you just admitting you're wrong when say things like you do, I want you to be my slave for the rest of my days (or your days, you'd probably die before me, being my Slave and all)

Now, I don't say that I believe in ghosts and shit like it, but I also can't they that there is absolutely no possibilty that they don't exist. Science has been wrong many, many times before.

I'll also ask you this as an example: Do you believe in aliens? There are absolutely no proof of the existance of alien life, but you have to be a fucken retard to not believe that there exist living organisms at some other planet or w/e in the universe. As I said, "The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.".

Mah, have fun being ignorant or be smart and change to a more neutral standpoint.

I never said none of the paranormal things exist I just said there is no evidence to show that they exist. The bible has been around for thousands of years but you can clearly see most of the stuff written in it are from people with a limited understanding of science.

All I say is that if someone makes a claim and provides no evidence that claim can be dismissed until evidence is shown.

If I told you that 3 flying pink elephants live in my garage but there is no way you can test to see if that is true would you accept my claim?



I never said that nothing paranormal exists. I said that I do not believe in anything paranormal and if someone has evidence to provide for the claim that paranormal things exist to please post it here.

Sure I believe there is other forms of life. I can't say whether they are highly intelligent or just simple single celled organisms.


All I am asking is for people to provide evidence for their claims. Most of these people are prone to skipping past the most possible explanation for an unknown event and moving right to some grande claim that is over blown.

So stop trying to twist what I say because I never stated to being a gnostic about denying paranormal events.

Actually, yes it is.

If there's no evidence to support the existence of something, then there's no real reason to believe in it.

This may not be as compelling as scientific evidence, but it is evidence in itself nonetheless.

Yea, I've seen TheAmazingAtheist as well, and this is one thing I disagree about.

Even if there's no evidence to support the existence of something, as long as there's no evidence of the opposite, it doesn't matter if you believe in it or not, since no one can prove you wrong. Rather, if having something to believe in makes you happy, then it's logically the right thing to do.

I can hardly find it to be used as an evidence or reason at all, and, as I said, if there is no evidence that prooves that it is wrong, then the choice to believe in something is just as reasonable as choosing not to believe in it.

You seem to forget that it is impossible to prove the nonexistence of something. Just because their is no evidence either way does not make it equal or more logical to except a claim.

Actually if you are a rational person you would demand evidence especially for such grand claims. If someone makes such a grand claim and provides no evidence whatsoever then it is illogical to except that claim. Rather you should dismiss their claim as unproven for the time being and only when sufficient evidence arrives should you consider it.

Also just because something makes you happy does not make it logical or good to believe in it. If a sexist man believes it's alright to treat females as below them just because their holy bible says so does that make it right or logical?

Just because it feels good doesn't mean it is good. People should rely on the evidence and not let their feelings over ride their judgement.

Actually I do not really understand fully on this.

Perhaps an example of a evidence that dissaproves something that exist? You cant provide evidence which dissaprove something that exist because it actually EXIST.

On the other hand, is it possible provide evidence on something that does not exist? Since it does not exist anyway so you cant get any evidence.

I find this statement rather weird, as not everything in reality is a easy "positive" and "negative" symmbols where when you can prove that it's positive, then you can disregard the negative.

Is there a real life example for this? because I can not think of any way of "Evidence that dissaproves the existence", sounds more like a bogus word game played to me, thanks.

That's it, right? You cannot prove the non-existance of something, but you cannot disregard it as false unless you have proof. An endless circle until proof of existance is shown.



I'll just say it like this then: a person is lonely and hate himself, his life, everything, and feels that he'd rather kill himself than live with those feelings.

If he then by chance starts believing in God or w/e, and find the strength to live and become happy by believing in him, is it still stupid of him, since there is no scientific proof of the existance of God. Is he better of dead?

You can disregard a claim if you feel there is not sufficient evidence for it. Lets say I told you that the galactic lord Xenu was coming to earth next week and if you do not throw away all possessions you have before next week you will be sent to be tortured for all eternity. Would you accept my claim or disregard it?




It depends on what claims he believes. If he believes the earth was created 6000 years ago and that the bible is a literal interpretation of the truth then yes he is stupid.

He is stupid regardless of how good it makes him feel emotionally.

It's not my choice to say whether he is better of dead and it is kind of irrelevant to the topic. If he wants to continue believing it that is his choice, but it won't make what he believes true and it won't make him any less of a bigot or idiot if he accepts bigoted or idiotic claims.

It is not logical to start believing in it even if it saves his life. It would be logical to believe if he wants his life to be saved.


To not believe in something is the natural default. We were all born atheists (whether you like it or not godfags). Since you watched TAA's videos then I assume you heard him say that "You don't believe in dragons until one is munching on your ass." (paraphrasing)

So no, to believe in something that has no support is not the same (or just as reasonable) as defaulting and not believing in it at all (when there's nothing to support it).


But when arguing against a negative, you have to do it from an agnostic viewpoint.

That's probably because the Bible was written about 4000 years ago... where was science back then? NOWHERE. Well, compared to today, nowhere at least.


This is truth, it's basically impossble to convince a Christian that God doesn't exist, unless they are already doubting his existence. Same goes for any supernatural.

True and not true, even if people are born atheist, they're many who are raised believers. You usually believe in a lot of things that you haven't seen and has no evidence of existance when you're a kid, like Santa or the Easter bunny for example. Then you grow up, and since you still haven't seen the real thing you start to belive the ones who says that they aren't real.



Even if science was as evolved back the nas it is now, it wouldn't had made any difference, since God, Jesus and miracles and shit alike can't be explained with science, just by belief.