A male celebrity is accused of rape or child molestation without any supporting material evidence, and people will believe the accusation without any trial or investigation, and treat the accused person as the most vile creature ever to walk the Earth.
Someone says, "I've seen a ghost!", and people will suddenly start seeing ghosts in every shadow, every flash of light, and in every possible setting and circumstance.
Someone else says "I am really a man/woman trapped in a woman's/man's body", and people will immediately begin to address the claimant by their preferred name and stated sex, regardless of the fact that sex is defined by genetics and not by belief.
A person will declare that God is speaking through them, and their followers will hang on to every word as if each one came from the lips of God.
In all of these cases, the claimants all know that all they have to is state their claim, and others will immediately believe the claim to be true. Those others will also make personal attacks against anyone who doesn't believe these unsupported claims.
Really, it is okay to doubt people and refer to their claims as "allegedly" so (i.e., allegedly been raped, allegedly seen a ghost, allegedly in the wrong body, allegedly a prophet, et cetera).
Why is it that some people insist that whatever someone says must be believed when there is no evidence to support what was said? Why is it that there are people who insist that verbal claims are more valid than material proof? Why to people perceive a request for supporting evidence as a personal attack?
Why believe anything without proof?
_________________
The mere fact that science may not yet adequately explain an object, event, or experience does not mean the immediate explanation should automatically default to a conspiratorial, extraterrestrial, paranormal, or supernatural cause.
06 Jan 2015, 10:07 pm
