I think 'I don't believe you've met your burden of proof' is a perfectly cromulent reason for me not believing some claim is justified. Not in the philosophical sense, but in the general sense of what sorts of things I should believe. If you convince me that you have met your burden of proof, I'll believe the claim. Conversely, if you convince me that something I do believe isn't rationally justifed (or in the case of something necessarrily not completely rational, like politics, not consistent with my own values), I'll stop believing it. Like I stopped believing in big L Libertarianism. When it comes down to what I do or don't believe, there's an unavoidable personal element. Is my skepticism set at the ideal level to 'let the most true stuff in and keep the most rubbish stuff out'? I'm not sure, I'm just making my best guess in each situation.
I'm not anti-Christian. I'm anti-stupid.
