Is what I think not what I think it is?

...is it possible for the guy on the fence, the guy looking for the third option, the guy who questions everything, to be the one who's defending their own views?

I consider myself an agnostic, an atheist and an anarchist. These are defined by what they are not. More to the point, none of them make a positive claim.

Burden of Proof states that whoever makes a positive claim is responsible for providing evidence to back that claim, otherwise we should consider it false. For example, if somebody says unicorns exist but has no evidence, we shouldn't believe them.

Even though it's considered a logical fallacy, the reasoning is more practical. It'd be nearly impossible to prove a negative claim. In order to be certain that unicorns don't exist, you'd have to recreate the universe and comb all of space and time.

Thus, the theist has to prove God(s) exists, the statist has to prove that authority is legitimate, and anyone who claims anything to be objective truth has to prove that it is.

It ain't like I haven't been looking, especially since I don't even want to believe a lot of the things that I currently do, but I at least find some kind of fatal flaw in every philosophical argument that bears the burden of proof.

...but is it possible I have something to prove after all? Could it be that my position isn't on the outside looking in? Could I be just as guilty of protecting a worldview as the zealot, even after abandoning a faith and changing my stance more than once before adopting one I thought was secular and apolitical?