DwnWthVwls

Maybe, you're right. I'm not an expert, that is just my understanding. Perhaps only the agnostic atheist position I described has no burden of proof?

My line of reasoning was that if you are not claiming something as true then you do not have a burden of proof. The acceptance or denial of a claim is different then making the claim?

This is why I like discussing this stuff.

Edit: Sorry it's getting late. Brain has been thinking all day and I'm getting quite exhausted. Prolly be better if I revisit this tomorrow with a fresh mind. I'll have to rewatch the video and then address the points I made earlier.

__________________
I don't got a god complex, you got a simple god...

Goofle

I've actually come to disagree with this, despite probably holding that view for many years. My one caviat would be to distinguish between fundamentalists and those who have a firm belief in God. If the individuals use their own rationale and morality to selectively pick and choose the good parts, you're probably going to end up no worse than a strict non believer, without the added self-important superiority complex.

__________________

Dharma & Greg

I'm kinda in the middle here. In the long run I think humanity would be better off dealing with reality, but on a person-by-person I don't believe religion causes much harm to those with stable minds. Not that I think they actually need religion, but it's already there and they've molded how they view the world around it. To those people I would not take away whatever it is that is giving them comfort in-between now and the day that they die and cease to exist for the rest of eternity. I highly doubt it would truly help them.