There may not be strong proof but there's at least some circumstantial evidence.
There's also circumstantial evidence that the moon landing was faked (more specifically, there was plenty of motive to fake it, actually getting there is hard, and we haven't repeated the feat in over a decade). There's a reason people don't trust circumstantial evidence.
Since I should probably give a more rigorous reason why circumstantial evidence should be ignored; the probability of observing the evidence when it's true isn't higher than the probability of observing the evidence when it's false. It's not evidence.
As for James Randi and his Million Dollar Challenge, I feel it hasn't been won because his standards are too high. The thing about the so-called "supernatural" or "woo" is that it can't always be performed or examined on-cue perfectly like stuff in the material plane. He's applying strict standards meant for matter that wouldn't work well with spirit or psyche.
Then how can you tell it apart from random chance?
Do I believe there's a lot of bogus "psychics" & "mystics" out there? Yes! I'm no fool. I believe that extraordinary claims require a whole lot of scrutiny.
Already been explained why that's exactly what Randy thinks, too.
Do I believe there's a lot of crappy pseudoscience? Heck yeah! That said, some things related to scientific theories, the new physics or a multiverse shouldn't be tossed out as woo because it sounds too weird or hard to test in a lab.
The only reason the multiverse hypothesis isn't woo is because it's proponents are trying to come up with experiments instead of selling fake "contact your parallel universe self" tools. (It should go without saying that if it turns out somebody actually is selling contact with your parallel universe self, they're peddling woo.)
Sometimes I feel that U.P. and I are the only people on this board who have any sort of spiritual belief. We don't hate Atheists. I'm fine with Atheism. I deeply respect a person's right to have that worldview without people hatin' on them.
I've noticed, and I strongly appreciate that. And though I do not think your ideas make any sense, I fully oppose anyone who says you shouldn't be allowed to believe them.
Paragon isn't talking about refuting Atheists, he's talking about Anti-Theists....people who take Atheism to evangelistic levels. There is a difference. People like U.P. and I find Anti-Theists irritating because we hate being lumped together with whackjobs like Pat Robertson & DAESH. We hate religious frummery and ignorance as much as any rational person! We accept science, a billions-years-old world, humans as primates and all other modern science. We believe in equal rights.
Misrepresenting people is, of course, wrong, and comparing you to DAESH is practically libel.
I'm afraid, whether you want to or not, if you're arguing that belief in god(s) is rational, then you're trying to refute any atheist who does not believe due to (in their estimation, of course) lack of evidence. Not just the obnoxious ones, though they're far more likely to participate in debates like this one.
It's insulting! I hate being compared to DAESH.
The quiet majority of religious people do not and will not go kill-all-heretics. I get that. That does not, however, make your beliefs rational. It merely makes them safe.
Let me say something else, sometimes I do side with guys like James Randi. There are many things in which I and the "skeptic" crowd agree. I respect his efforts to debunk phony psychics, faith healers, cults, televangelists. I love reading RationalWiki and I find conspiracy nuts, anti-vaxxers, many New Age trends (I do have New Agey beliefs but some New Age stuff is clearly stupid and a scam), certain forms of alternative medicine & anti-GMO foods to be ridiculous.
Why can't Atheists, Agnostics, Theists, Deists & Pantheists just all get along, find common ground and unite and fight FRUMMERY & FANATICISM instead?
(A) that line is not as easy to draw as you make it seem. Anon-e-moose from FSTDT seems pretty fanatical to me (one word: "thoughtcrime"), but I don't think you'd agree. And that's before the possibility of hyperbole comes in.
(B) some of them ARE frummers and fanatics, you just said so yourself a few paragraphs ago. Even among the pantheists.
(C) despite this, it is happening. That's why organizations like the ACLU exist. But where disagreement exist, there will be some arguing; the only question is whether it's kept civil.
Admittedly, though I've tried not to make it worse, this thread isn't a shining example of civility.
Granted, even I think U.P. was kinda crusin' for a brusin' by starting this thread to begin with. However I feel that deep-down, he's a decent guy.
This thread gets way too snarky & unfriendly. Why can't you be like the folks over at the sister site of FSTDTs? Somehow, there's more a variety of people and they seldom turn on each other. I feel welcome there. Perhaps Paragon & I should ditch this place and hang out at FSTDTs exclusively.
Fights are less common on FSTDT because people have a common target to vent at. See also the Worst Political Cartoons thread.