Religion does not make a person good, reasonable or logical.
Yes, of course.
a jurors job is to listen to the facts, nothing more, so what you posted has no revelance
The burden of proof rests upon the person making the positive claim. Believers assert there is a god, which is the positive claim therefore the burden of proof rests on them. Yet with no credible evidence to support that claim they assert that they believe because you cannot prove there is not a god. So are we to conclude that Person X killed Tom because, although there is no evidence that Person X did kill Tom(the positive claim) that because we do not have evidence that he did not that he is guilty? According to a believers reasoning that is what they would do. So should we allow them to sit on a jury?
