On the subject of Hell and Salvation

[fredd bear]

To be fair, 'I believe in god(s)' is a claim about one's personal state, it's reasonable to take their word that they believe unless their other words or actions indicate that they don't really believe. Even though we have posters who claims that atheists secretly really do believe, I'm not inclined to be so skeptical about people's truthfulness in their self-reporting in such matters.

Burden of proof is about a claim made by a person. It is his responsibility to prove the truth of the claim EG The existence  of god. It has nothing to do with his sincerity/honesty.

My comment about the burden of proof is about a basic concept used in rational argument.  I consider it important to avoid a  trick often used in discussion.IE  "Well, YOU  prove I'm wrong! "   It is up to the person making a claim to provide proof. This has nothing to do with truth or honesty. 


Holder of the burden
When two parties are in a discussion and one makes a claim that the other disputes, the one who makes the claim typically has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim especially when it challenges a perceived status quo.[1] This is also stated in Hitchens's razor. Carl Sagan proposed a related criterion, the Sagan standard, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".[2]
While certain kinds of arguments, such as logical syllogisms, require mathematical or strictly logical proofs, the standard for evidence to meet the burden of proof is usually determined by context and community standards and conventions.[3][4]
Philosophical debate can devolve into arguing about who has the burden of proof about a particular claim. This has been described as "burden tennis" or the "onus game".[5][6][7]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_...hilosophy)