ATHEISTS and BELIEVERS, Guilty Until Proven Innocent?

As believers in God say he exists, it follows that it is up to them to back this claim up and they need to produce satisfactory evidence and perhaps proof - if proof is available.  And it is the same for us atheists who say there is no God.  The burden of proof means you put your evidence where your mouth is.  It is respect for yourself, the other and for the truth.

We should remind them.  But we will be accused of saying that belief in God is to be considered guilty of credulity and lack of concern for evidence until proven innocent.  It goes without saying that guilty until proven innocent is a terrible policy.
They are asserting that holding that God exists and serving him is playing safe.  This is related to innocent until proven guilty. It is like if we disagree with them that we are accusing them in some way.  This tactic is a powerful way to keep professed atheists from challenging them.

Atheism, asserting that God does not exist, is accused of depriving God of his rightful place.  Religion finds atheism guilty until proven innocent.
Take faith in God and atheism.  What if both are guilty and need proving innocent?  This is an if.  Even if that is not possible they still need it.   Which one is the lesser "crime" though? Do we toss a coin? 

Atheism, as in the assertion that there is no God, is the best option.  We can live without faith in God.
The believer wants to say God is all-good until proven bad.

A God that is not good is not a God - but a bully called God. But innocent until proven guilty does not apply across the board. If the president is accused of being about to send the world into Armageddon, you have to assume he is guilty and shoot him. Innocent until proven guilty does not apply in extreme cases. It does not apply to God who lets babies suffer horrendously. There is a lack of rapport and empathy in the person who thinks it applies to him.


No Copyright