Excuse me of course, but I really want to ask such a question. Do you believe in the human soul? I know that the human body is but but maybe there is still such a thing as the human soul. And I'm wondering whether someone believes in the fact that there is a person's soul. If the soul does exist then all these questions that raise regarding the evidence of God simply do not make sense.

Why quote Wiki on parapsychology? Check wiki instead about the book Irreducible Mind , one of the authors has a book examining a CENTURY of evidence for survival, this research is certainly worth examining in detail, it is more proof that parapsychology is a legitimate field of inquiry validated by camera footage, a century of scientific observations, testing by the CIA, and many other varied forms of evidence.

"It is strong confirmation of any theory that proofs converging from many and varying classes of phenomena unite in establishing it."

Even Turing believed in ESP, there is a long history of evidence and respectable research. Atheists should realize the scale of the evidence and have the courage to investigate thoroughly and weigh the explanations against each other.

Proving the soul or survival means that humanism is false. All rational atheists are humanists (since what else could they be).

I took what out of what context? Speak to me, explain, come up with arguments, enough with the links already. If you are not able to speak to me and you always need to give me links with what others think that us 'skeptics' are wrong about, then you do not understand anything of it. More than that, I can't understand what you are talking about because you solely posted a link. If you want to answer to what I have said, talk about that, you have it there, you can analyze it and tell me what do you believe is wrong and why. In that way, we can have a proper conversation. Otherwise it will be the same as it is with Badecker, everyone trying to have a conversation and a monkey saying anything that crosses his mind. Let's keep this simple and efficient.

For the last time, humanism does not claim that categorically souls do not exist. Humanism considers there is no reason to believe it since the proof is very little, to nothing, and the possibility is the same so it centers its attention on something that it is more important: the human being, the one that really exists, something that we know for sure, a species that was also once on the verge of extinction, a species that we are part of. Science has worked until now, at this moment we communicate with its help, not through telekinesis, not through a miracle or any divine being. We can understand it, it is real and it helps us human beings to communicate. Proving the soul exists would not change that, it would not prove God exists and we should venerate him instead of taking care of us. We would only know that the soul exists and it might survive our death. Why? That would be left out to further research. But for now, we don't have the evidenced proof that the 'soul' exists.

I advise to read the book"The God Delusion; 2006 ,Book by Richard Dawkins"

The extraordinary evidence (in favor of parapsychology and survival) has already been provided. I also linked to some examples where this evidence was deliberately ignored by skeptics. Since that information is in the link above, I am including it in our conversation by way of reference; surely you have the ability to read through an essay on the topic of skeptical misdirection because it clearly relates to our discussion about parapsychology.

Psychics and telekinesis were tested by the CIA and other spy agencies and on camera by psychologists.

I have posted a lot of other extraordinary evidence, yet skeptics insist there is no reliable evidence. Why keep up the charade? Skeptics should just come out and say what is so unreliable about the tests done to prove telekinesis.

Sources:
On-Camera test: http://eegym.com/can-eeg-tell-if-telekinesis-is-a-magicians-trick-2/
Test by the United States CIA: https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/66xy95/zhang_baosheng_confirmed_cia_psychic_ability_to/

Let us learn something. Not only that man has evolved, but his system of thinking has evolved and it is still evolving. Whatever discoveries we've made, our greatest ideas have always came out of a 'cold thinking', which means detaching from what you find more likely to believe in and really measure the situation. Religious people, let's take Badecker for instance, automatically start from the conclusion that God exists. They never start from 0 thus their reasoning on this subject is corrupted from the beginning by their very own mind and system of belief. Let's observe something: a question that many religious ask atheists is 'If God would come and reveal himself, and you would see it with your own eyes, would you believe in him?' and of course most atheists say 'yes, but I find that very highly improbable'. However, religious people have many evidence in their face yet they do not believe in it, because of being biased, of course. They don't believe in evolution, although they could see it with their very own eyes, they don;t believe in a Big Bang, although they could see the traces of it with their very own eyes, etc. But why would our brain have these fallacies? Why is our brain learning and slowly evolving instead of getting all of the information from the beginning in a perfect system? Why do our 'divine' feelings are the same as the effects of many drugs? Could that not be another fallacy of the brain, a fail in the system? Of course it could be and it is not alone. Now, an intelligent design would not have these errors, not so many, not so diverse, not some that appear in different times. A random happening, on the other hand, could cause such diversity, such a beautiful happening as the human being is with such big flaws, errors. What was the cause for this Universe? A Big Bang, whether apologists like it or not. What was the cause of that Big Bang? We don't know, neither us, nor the apologists. Nobody knows and it will not be an easy answer. In this situation, believing God was the cause of the Big Bang is a fallacy in the system. It's the same as hearing about a death scene, knowing only it might be suicide and without any reason or further information calling it a crime and pointing to a killer that might exist or might have been made up at the moment.
P.S. we're not going to do episode 15 of Badecker because all he said is something about Dawkins and I'm not gonna get my hands dirty today with a piece of shit like Badecker. I'll let him post some more so I can give him a good blow on the empty head.

You said yourself that cause and effect alone can't prove God, are you losing your memory? Why do you even comeback to this thread where all your crazy ideas have been debunked already. You come here just to say the same thing now, God did it. Save yourself the trouble, you are not convincing anyone, at this point it seems like you are trying to convince yourself.