Can atheists convert theists?

[Knight]

Rejection the notion that something which has not been observed, measured, or detected exists is meaningless.

If something has already been observed and measured it would be stupid to reject it. It's only when it is claimed to exist and it has NOT been observed and measured that rejecting its existence makes sense.

EvF

Regarding the first sentence: Precisely, I completely agree! I also somewhat agree with the second sentence, but in a different way. If someone gives you how they define God, it is then possible to reject this based upon known evidence. In this sense, the atheist position is a reasonable position. If the God that is defined cannot be disproved, then it can neither be accepted or rejected--in fact, it shouldn't even be defined at all without falsifiable evidence, and that's the point. It is a backwards way of thinking to do so. The God which is defined that actually defies evidence should not be defined either due to the lack of falsifiable evidence, but at least with this God an outright rejection is reasonable. Still, I just have a personal problem jumping to the rejection step because there is a problem with the preceding step.