Since you quoted me, Bill, I guess I should reply. Here's my response to what you said about burden of proof. It's what I've already said in an earlier post:

"From my own perspective, as far as proof is concerned, I would not seek to prove anything of a spiritual nature to anyone. I see that sort of thing as a violation of the free will of another and, to my way of thinking, intrusive and counterproductive. But by the same token, I don't think it would be particularly productive for me to pretend that I experience or understand things any differently than I do."

You don't have to accept that I experience what I say I do, but I don't see why you would feel a need to try to convince me that I don't experience what I say I do, for the reasons that I state.

So?....well, they CANNOT all be right, in an absolute sense of the word 'right'.

I disagree with this premise. They can all be "right" in the way that several different people can all be right about the different things they see in a microscope if they're all looking at the same thing under different magnifications. They're all looking at essentially the same thing, but what each of them sees is entirely different than what the others see. I think that's a pretty good metaphor for how people see spiritual/physical realities differently.