Point 1 - It is irrational to believe in anything that hasn't been proven:
I agree with [edit]some[edit] of what he's saying. It's not logical to say that if it hasn't been proven it doesn't exist, but i don't think that this is the position of most skeptics. It's a bit of a strawman in that regard.
I may be a bit behind the times, but I wasn't aware that acupuncture has been proven to be effecacious in double-blind trials...
He then talks about people who have experienced a paranormal event (such as OBEs and NDEs), and claims that they consider that experience to be proof to them that [whatever] is true.
What people may believe is irrelevant and what an individual considers proof has no bearing in evaluating a pranormal claim. Skeptics aren't asking [woos] to prove anything to 'us', or 'me'... We're asking that you prove it to 'science'. There is a 'international standard' for proof and that's what we want to see...
He claims that skeptics are ignoring one-off successes (PEAR et al.) and also cites examples of things that skeptics were 'wrong about' (such as flight and giant squids), and ignores that fact that the former have not been repeated, and that it was science (and therefore skeptics) that demonstrated the existance or possibility of the latter.
