In article , Gary
Harnagel writes:

A scientist is trained to be
skeptical, and skepticism argues for your viewpoint.

Skepticism argues that one should not believe anything without good
evidence.

So why believe that God doesn't exist without good evidence?

Because, as a matter of principle, one can only prove the existence of
something, not its lack of existence. For the same reason, we don't
assume "guilty until proven innocent". This is a basic principle of
science. One can say "why not believe X unless there is evidence to the
contrary" but another can say "why not believe the absence of X without
evidence to the contrary". If both statements are valid, no progress
can be made. For the same reason that "innocent until proven guilty" is
the rule, the burden of proof is on someone who believes something, not
on someone who doesn't believe something. This is a basic principle of
science. Why not believe that there are 157 elements unless there is
evidence to the contrary? Why not believe that there are 30 planets in
the Solar System? Science just doesn't work that way.

[Moderator's note: Followups should address astronomy, or at least
science. -P.H.]

Indeed. :-)