When it comes to the existence of God, it’s pretty simple: Logical law demands that only proof of existence can make things certain – and that it is impossible to prove a negative, or the non-existence of anything. This however, is the common last ground that theists often use as an argument, “well you can’t prove that God doesn’t exist”, but they don’t realise that this is just as impossible as proving that the tooth-fairy doesn’t exist: There might be a lot of circumstantial evidence in children witnessing the fact that their tooth was removed from under their pillow, and replaced with money, but no one can find any proof that she does in fact not exist. This is because in logic, proving something’s non-existence requires non-existing proof (or proof of non-existence which is impossible too). And that’s where the argument fails, thus it is impossible to prove a negative. What the tooth-fairy doesn’t have in common with God is the fact that there is a social-consensus about the ridiculousness of the idea of the existence of the tooth-fairy, which people draw upon to be absolutely sure about the fact that the tooth fairy doesn’t exist. But they have absolutely no proof that she doesn’t, because that’s impossible. But because so many parents have taken the manipulative role of creating the myth about her, these people can be fairly sure, given the social consensus, that it is just in fact a myth.

We wonder if many rational priests feel a similar notion about their work, and just like parents feed the lesser intellects with a comforting myth, with an in-built reward only infinitely better than money – eternal afterlife in paradise. We do see that religion thus can serve many positive subjective purposes, and if some people need a crutch that big, they should definitely go for it. But in an objective perspective, religion has been such a negative, regressing force in human history, in such a degree that it is almost unforgivable. And never should any theist ever try to push religion down over another person’s head, blatantly stating the harsh-judging existence of a supreme metaphysical being and creator, of which they have no proof of, and to defend this fact, argue that the atheists don’t have proof either! “Of course!” one might feel tempted to say, “that would be equally impossible to provide, since the dude doesn’t exist!”

The burden to provide proof lies thereby wholly with those who claim the existence of anything. Including God. Just like early explorers proved the existence of huge grey mammals with long tentacle-like noses, the elephant, by capturing one and bringing it back for all to see, so must the believers of God produce proof for their claim of an invisible elephant in the room, for all to see. If they can’t, the logical stance would be to become and remain atheist, or at least be agnostic.

If you are interested in this topic, please watch this video-clip:

If you’re not convinced that this is the intelligent choice, despite Ms. Rand’s verification, just watch this next clip :-9 :