When does one go to heaven?

[Don Corleone]

It's because of the logic, derived from the position that Christians take about their god. Atheists and agnostics try to understand using the thought process they are used to - which excludes faith based assumptions.

God created everything. Since evil exists, therefore he created evil. As creator, he cannot claim credit just for good. Thus he can be apportioned responsibility for evil, even if his creation of Man is the one choosing to inflict evil.

Or:

God created everything except evil. Since evil exists, there must be another creator, at least as powerful as God. Either this is Man, creating evil from his own free will, or another supernatural creator such as Satan. Evil is demonstrably as powerful as good to affect men's lives, which means either Man or Satan is as powerful as god. Therefore there is not one god, but at least two.

See?

Whereas the atheist can argue that since there is no God, Man takes full responsibility for both good and evil.

Okay, let's change metaphors and lets look at a family situation?

A set of parents create a house and in the fullness of time, they get pregnant and have a child. As the child grows, the parents try to do everything they can to see to it that the child grows up healthy, happy and wise.

When the child is 19, he discoveres his parents' liqour cabinet. He asks his parents for a key so that he can indulge too. Now, mind you, I said 19. He's old enough to know good and bad, right from wrong. His Dad says well, I think you're old enough. But before you touch anything, you must understand, things in this cabinet must be enjoyed in moderation. Too much of anything in here and you'll be very sick, possibly die. So, be careful.

One saturday night, a friend that the parents don't approve of comes over to hang out. Unfortunately, the parents aren't home. The 'friend' encourages the son to drink bourbon... a LOT of it. Too much. After he vomits it up, the friend holds the bottle to his mouth and encourages him to drink more. Eventually, the son succumbs to alcohol poisoning and dies.

Now, let me ask you...

Were the parents to blame?

Was the alcohol itself?

No, it was the son, who made the choice to continue drinking when he should have stopped, to hang out with a bad influence that he knew he should avoid, and to reject what his father had told him in his warnings.

Now, could the parents have seen to it that there was no alcohol? Does the fact that they didn't make the son's overindulgance their fault instead of his? Let's say the son didn't die. Let's say he pukes all over the floor, kicks his younger sister and breaks some valuable family heirlooms. His father comes home to find him staggering drunk, attempting to beat up his younger sister. The father backhands the son to try to bring him back to reality. Is the father solely responsible?

This is the problem with modern times. Everyone demands their rights, and nobody takes responsiblity for anything. We're all a bunch of children complaining that our piggy bank is empty after we've bought too much candy.