I'm sorry, I meant to say that "Burden of Proof is a curse word around here". That was left out mistakenly. Unfortunately, you do fall in the category of those who care more about believing they are right than actually being right. Otherwise, you would not demand that burden of proof be on anyone but yourself, nor would you care if proof was profitable for anyone else. Proof for your sake is sufficient, and others need not support their own beliefs. You would desire correction over desiring to correct others. You would seek Truth rather than force your version of it on others. After all, you cannot be certain that your parents are even who they claim to be and that you were not kidnapped as an infant. This is not meant to be inflammatory, it is only an example of something you cannot prove conclusively. You must decide for yourself how much evidence is sufficient for you to be convinced. As it is, you are convinced that the earth is round, yet it is quite possible that it did not even exist until you read the fourth line of this post. If it did not exist and all the evidence you recall hearing or observing only just randomly came into existence as electrons causing the firing of neurons in your brain and that the earth will cease to exist two lines from here, how can you be certain that for this minute and a half the earth is in existence that it is not flat, or cubed, or even a torus? The suggestion may seem ludicrous (as most argument ad absurdum do), but it is only to indicate that the threshold of evidence required for convincing can be different for different people. My best recommendation is to allow all possibilities to exist while giving preference to some over others and behaving as if certain ones were true. To feel as though you must convince others to behave similarly is a sign of weakness in your convictions.