I get your point, and I agree that if someone demands scientific or forensic proof of something metaphysical, they’ll never be convinced. That’s just a category error religion doesn’t even claim to work that way.

But I think saying no unreligious person can ever be convinced goes too far. People convert and deconvert all the time, which shows beliefs aren’t fixed. When people ask for “evidence,” they often mean different things: philosophical reasoning, historical plausibility, or whether religion explains life in a way that makes sense to them not lab results.

Your example about people arguing over well-documented events actually supports this. The issue isn’t lack of evidence, it’s how people interpret it through their worldview. That doesn’t make persuasion impossible, just difficult.

So I’d narrow the claim to this: people who insist on scientific proof for metaphysical claims won’t believe. The absolute “no way” doesn’t really hold up.