Do humans always accept proofs when presented to them?

[robvalue]

No, I've never heard anyone using arguments like this.

The fact that theists can't even agree on the very basic facts about what "God" is supposed to be would be a more important point to address. Most can't even give me a definition that means anything at all. Usually it's creator of the universe, plus incoherent word salad.

http://youtu.be/qahB7mYhLxs

Imagine if we were telling you about our mate Jim, but we all told you contradictory stuff about him and he never turned up to verify any of it. What would you think?

Bottom line: what theists consider "proof" and "evidence" are generally very different to what sceptics think they are. Proof is more accurately used in regard to abstract concepts, and evidence deals with reality. By the time the theist has finished trying to argue for God, it usually sounds like an incredibly ill-defined abstract concept with no evidence of its existence; just fallacious arguments and hand waving. The fallacies are pointed out, and the theist either can't or won't accept them.