Amnestic said:
Burden of Proof states that people who make the claim need to back it up with evidence, not those who disagree.
If you stated that everything was made up of particles and didn't provide any evidence to support your claims, of course people would disagree - same as if I claimed that all particles are shaped like smiley faces. Evidence or GTFO.
Not entirely. If I was asking you to believe, then I would need proof to convince you. However, the course of my life has convinced me of senses beyond the physical 5, and for you to convince me otherwise would require you to provide proof that my experiences were not what I thought they were.
Amnestic said:
The same can be said for Psychics. These people claim to have psychic ability, present what is essentially cold reading, are consistently proven to be fraudulent and then we're expected to say "Oh, well maybe they exist anyway?"
With no evidence to support the existence of psychics, the only logical conclusion is that they don't exist. Once proof to the contrary comes to light, then perhaps people would change their views.
Not entirely true. There is evidence for such things, particularly in nature. Too often people associate this kind of things with assholes like Uri Gellar or astrologers in news papers. That is kind of like saying there are no such things as gorillas because someone photographed a yeti.
If you are interested, read the book Supernature by Lyall Watson and you will learn a lot of things about this topic. There are no such things as spoon benders, and things happening just because they want them too, but there are some things in nature that seem to work outside the box, and require further study.