Whatever the peculiars of the case, one underlying question, in particular, undergirds any helpful criticism of such fanatical religious stupidities: how can the God/gods purported be proven to be in any way real?
One philosopher, Bertrand Russell (1872-1970), proposed that, in matters of the supernatural, the person who states there is a divine super-reality (including divine beings) has the responsibility to prove their statement(s) are evidentially true.
Russell used the analogy of a teapot in orbit around the moon: anyone can say there is a teapot encircling the moon, but the person who states such a thing has the burden of proving that their statement is true by showing the evidence for their claim. This responsibility for furnishing a positive position or proposition with accomodating evidence has become known as the "burden of proof."
In matters of religion, it is the person who states that God exists who has the burden of proof and give evidence for their claim. The non-believer is under no such responsibility to give evidence for their non-position. Or, to put it another way: person X claims God exists and offers evidence to prove their case; person Y makes no claim on the existence of God and therefore has no burden to prove a non-claim.
So where does this leave us? Well, here is a clever little presentation (2 minutes) that illustrates not only the absurdity of some religious mindsets, but also incites the necessity for proving that the celestial teapot exists but only having the fanaticism of religious teapotists to point to. Enjoy!
Thank you to Atheist Media Blog for this clever little video.