This is an attempt to create an example scenario which could demonstrate the reasons why attempting to convince an atheist of religious views/claims using purly religious "reasonings" or "logic" will ultimately flop worse than a 300 pound man diving off a 15 foot high diving board into a pool with his arms and legs spread out.

For this example, let's assume that a group of 6 people (3 atheists,and 3 Christians, for example) walk into a 40 foot tall building, with multiple floors, but only has a single column of windows vertically scaling the East facing side(let us assume this is also where the entrance is). In direct veiw of these windows is a 30 foot tall building directly across the street, a small public park (open space, with tree lines enclosing it), and a gas station.

Now, all six people enter the building and qsend a flight of stairs to the first floor. The window here is high enough to see the major things above, with loss of observability due to the tree limbs. They all agree that they can see the building, the gas station, and the park. However, closer inspection of the park reveals an anomaly: there appears to be a pile of light brown material in the park, though the tree limbs obstruct their view enough to make it impossible to tell exactly what it is.

Then, the material seems to move, along with what appears to be a person atop it, leading 4 of the six to say that it could be a horse. After looking through the same window for a few more produces no new insight, the atheists decide to asend to the second floor to have a view less obstructed by the tree limbs. The Christians remain, stating "The object is moving, and there is a person atop it, therefore it must be a horse". Any attempt by the atheists at rationalizing and explaining why moving one floor higher would allow for better understanding of what it could be is met by " I know it is a horse, because I have seen it move with my own eyes." The atheists go on with their desicion to go up a floor. Upon reaching the second floor window, the atheists find that the light brown material is, in fact, a pile of gravel. The "movement" is the shadow of the tree limbs moving when the wind blows, and the person is a kid trying to get on top of the pile. The atheists report this to the religious people, whom are still convinced it is a horse, saying "There is no way those factors could make anything resembling realistic movement, as the eye is perfect. It must be a horse!" The atheists continue to give more and more proof, even going to far as to take pictures and look up the location on Google earth, to no avail. The atheists, realizing it is pointless to try any more, continue to their intended destinations.

CONSTRUCTIVE criticism is appreciated.