I'm not equating that, atheists tend to. The parade example being Russel's teapot. There are many kinds of atheism, and I am a very different kind of atheist than most atheists here. Frankly, I don't want to become one of them, for a number of reasons. Which is why trying to find evidence of God in the same manner one would try to find evidence of chairs and tables is simply misleading in that it is operating out of a non-theistic definition of "God." And yet atheists tend to do it. One cannot define "God" as "Supreme Being", "Creator" and "Controller of the Universe," then proceed to look for evidence of "God" in the same manner that one seeks evidence of chairs and tables - and still think one is being consistent. Suggesting that God exists in such an objective manner, independently from people, still doesn't mean that God is the kind of thing as chairs and tables are. Working with the definition of "God" as "Supreme Being", "Creator" and "Controller of the Universe" has the implication that one posits that one's own existence and all one's actions, including this very contemplation of "God," are contextualized by God, and so there can be no evidence of God that one could come by independently from God, on one's own. One needn't be a theist to understand that. It's simply conclusions that follow from applying particular definitions of "God."