Anyone else struck by Drich insisting it's not about the validity of what the little girl is hearing by giving hypotheticals that strike at the very heart of the validity of what she may be hearing? Pretty funny.
But yeah, there's an incredibly remote possibility that the Christian pantheon is real, and that Satan has picked this random girl to screw with. However, there's a far, far, far greater possibility that she's suffering from mental illness and its symptoms are exacerbated by Christian imagery. Given that a little girl's life is, you know, actually at stake, the prudent course of action is to treat her for mental illness and not wait for metaphysical confirmation of anything due to a misguided "what if you're wrong?"
I think it's also important to note that not everyone who thinks outside the box is a genius. Most are, in fact, crackpots. Innovation doesn't come from simply going against the grain, but in demonstrating that you're right. So, yeah, the validity of situations like these are, indeed, the heart of the matter. The question really isn't "what if you're (the mainstream) wrong?" but, rather, "why do you (the outlier) think you're right?" It's that way with everything - new claims must meet the burden of proof. And when the claims go against previously held knowledge that has demonstrated its usefulness and (perhaps incomplete) truthfulness, then yes, the burden is quite heavy.
But yeah, there's an incredibly remote possibility that the Christian pantheon is real, and that Satan has picked this random girl to screw with. However, there's a far, far, far greater possibility that she's suffering from mental illness and its symptoms are exacerbated by Christian imagery. Given that a little girl's life is, you know, actually at stake, the prudent course of action is to treat her for mental illness and not wait for metaphysical confirmation of anything due to a misguided "what if you're wrong?"
I think it's also important to note that not everyone who thinks outside the box is a genius. Most are, in fact, crackpots. Innovation doesn't come from simply going against the grain, but in demonstrating that you're right. So, yeah, the validity of situations like these are, indeed, the heart of the matter. The question really isn't "what if you're (the mainstream) wrong?" but, rather, "why do you (the outlier) think you're right?" It's that way with everything - new claims must meet the burden of proof. And when the claims go against previously held knowledge that has demonstrated its usefulness and (perhaps incomplete) truthfulness, then yes, the burden is quite heavy.
"I was thirsty for everything, but blood wasn't my style" - Live, "Voodoo Lady"
