When questioned by a dying patient about his religious beliefs, physician Francia Collins stammered out the words “I’m not sure.” Collins, who in the moment was unable to provide a coherent response, said that the exchange with his patient “haunted” him for several days. “I was confident,” Collins recalled, “that a full investigation of the rational basis for faith would deny the merits of belief, and affirm my atheism.” With that goal in mind, he set out to indirectly prove atheism true by disproving God. In the end, the exact opposite happened. Francis Collins eventually converted to Christianity because of the rational basis for the faith, along with an indescribable impression left by an overwhelming religious experience. Very well and good for his conversion, certainly! However, my interest here lies in his initial defensive attempt to “reaffirm” his atheism. Claims of truth are either positive claims or they are negative claims. A negative assertion of a truth claim is quite interesting and is based upon the adage: “You can’t prove something doesn’t exist just because you haven’t found it.” Now, since atheism makes the negative claim that God does not exist, and since the burden of proof falls on the person making the claim, the atheist must prove the negative claim that atheism is true and that God indeed does not exist. The premise of atheism is quite interesting because it is not a belief in something, but rather a belief in that something’s polar opposite: disbelief. In the case of atheism, it is the belief that there is nothing rather than something, namely God. Since there are only two options—either belief in God, or belief in nothing, then atheism is, in fact, belief in nothing, or rather a belief in something that does not exist, which is impossible. For example, if I wanted to prove the existence of horses, all that is required is for me to observe the existence of one horse and have that evidence corroborated by other witnesses.