Ah, an Occam's Razor fan!
I don't agree with your thought that we should go with the most mundane explanation as an automatic. That being said, I do think we should go with
the one with the best evidence backing it up... which in the case of most things, does happen to be the mundane one. However, in some cases the
mundane evidence and the "alternative" one have fairly equal amounts of weight behind them - and in rare cases, the alternative has more
For example, the existence of aliens is one that, in my opinion, has more alternative backing than the other. The only evidence we have for that is
one interpretation of events in history and the percentile heavy unlikelihood that we're alone in the universe. Neither of those are what I'd
exactly call hard science (although the latter leans further towards it than the former). I don't think its the exception to the rule, and its for
this reason I'd argue against mundane being automatic.
However, I do agree that a large portion of the believers I've seen will kick anything mainstream to the curb. You're hardly what I'd call the
opposite of that - you seen willing to at least weigh the possibility of the alternative option. Rather than that making you a disinfo agent or a
shill, I'd say that simply makes you a good critical thinker. It also makes you not that different from a person who believes and will go for the
alternative choice in a gridlock.
When nothing further can be debated, one has to pick a side. I don't fault you for picking one side over the other! Us in the believers camp could
probably use more skeptics!