You're trying to make an argument from authority, saying that just because an authoritative figure developed some sort of evidence, that means it's true. This is a logical fallacy and is not coherent at all.

Yes I can. As I said before, the only respectable and legitimate evidence regarding ESP, paranormal phenomena, etc. is evidence that falsifies its existence. I would like to read the results from these "tests" you are in so much favor of.

No it's not. Saying something is "stupid" is negative.

This is true, but you are forgetting that we can disprove something based on falsifying evidence.

No it isn't (though it is a statement with negative connotations). You stated "X doesn't exist." And you do not what doesn't is a contraction of right? Does not. In other words your statement was "X does NOT exist." Now, please state how that is not a negative assertion.

Out of curiosity, do you think atoms did not exist before their existence could be proven?

They don't exist obviously (edit: conclusive tests I mean). That still doesn't prove conclusively that psychic phenomena don't exist. Yes, it's very unlikely they don't, but their non-existence hasn't been proven yet.

Oh really?

{"name":"601940","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/5\/b\/5bfa030d05104e38debdfb368dd787ed.jpg","w":715,"h":190,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/5\/b\/5bfa030d05104e38debdfb368dd787ed"}

Then say what you actually mean instead of being vague. You criticise other people for logical fallacies and then use vague statements to make your point.

Then give us your evidence. So far, you're just talking out your ass.

You asserted that evidence doesn't exist. We're just wondering what evidence you're basing that statement on.

Well, if hairs are to be split, existence isn't a proposition to be proven. A more fruitful approach to understanding the paranormal would be to ask the following:

1. What truths can be stated about the paranormal?

2. What testable hypotheses can be formulated regarding documented paranormal phenomena?

Been an hour, dude. That's supper, desert, picking my teeth, and a round of Starcraft II multiplayer. Anyway, if I had ESP and knew I couldn't prove it or teach it, I'd just use it to improve my lot in life and never tell a soul. So, yeah.

That's the secret behind the richest, most powerful people in the world. They all have ESP

Impossible; there's no evidence!

{"name":"johnny-carson.jpg","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/4\/6\/4630a8b0d5ec1b850d3452c6a8a2d383.jpg","w":472,"h":349,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/4\/6\/4630a8b0d5ec1b850d3452c6a8a2d383"}

Why would god need cotton candy?

Russel's teapot is just an imaginary object created by Russel himself. The only purpose of it is to be a tool for explaining philosophical thoughts. There are no people who wish it was true. But there are people who wish God exists and they build up their view of life, universe and everything on that. Some live a happy and fulfilling life that way, some don't.

There are also people wishing that remote viewing were true. There are lots of failed experiments, that in the long run should give people a hint of how things really are, concerning remote viewing (the lotto number type of it). And no experiments verifying that it exists. So the whole concept is a creation of a human mind. And not a very scientific human mind, so don't compare to Democritus and his atoms.

Yes, I admit that I used "scientific human mind" very subjectively.

<edit>
OMG, I just came up with a horrifying thought. First I thought of quoting something about spirituality that Tobias mentioned. I was going to reply something that whatever spiritualism or deities your 42-view includes, if you succeed to live and die happy, that's the only thing what matters. Well, that's been said before, too. But my horrifying thought was this: "that's the only thing what matters"! Why is the word matter used here? I strongly believe homonyms affect our mind. Simply because language itself forms the brickstones of our thinking. Well, matter is well defined in physics, something that exists in the "real" world. So, to the question "What really matters in life?" an easy answer would be something related to the "real" world, to the materialistic or "matter" world. So if your mother tongue is English, you're more likely to grow a materialistic 42-view.

I've never understood this definition of science that involves being unable to prove a negative. A casual glance reveals that there are no dragons in my room. If anyone doesn't believe it, they can come and see for themselves. And yet, I'm not supposed to say that there are no dragons in my room?

It seems very similar to the skeptic's challenge, which states that there's no way we can ever know if anything is true. It could be an illusion, you could be insane, etc. And yet, there's a very compelling answer to the skeptic's challenge:

The skeptic is urging us to consider reality in an improbable way. Since we are interested in knowing "the truth", we take that which is most probable, and use it for our basis of understanding. We discard things which are extremely improbable, unless the time comes when they seem more likely, at which point we may call them a new "truth".

I think this is the only real way to understand the universe without descending into madness. Thus, it is true that there are no dragons in my room.