No you misunderstand me. My original reply was about evidence not being accepted, or worse a double standard being employed. By that I mean that some atheists will accept ONLY empirical evidence. They will not accept other valid evidences. The goal of debate is truth, i.e. to prove something exists. If this is the case both sides should accept all evidence that it exists.
BTW, I could defend both the 'object' argument, as well as the argument that some atheists demand an unequal playing field, accepting only some types of evidence etc (my original reply was defending the latter). For example an invisible dragon is not the same thing as God existing. Christians can present eye witness evidences, among others. Those who claim the invisible dragon can not. Jesus was God, as was alluded to by professional theologians etc. Jesus was known in Rome as a risk to national security due to his supernatural ability and the people he was attracting to his movement via his powers. I don't know of many invisible dragons that walk on water that were seen by thousands and considered real enough to be noticed the most powerful nations on earth, eh? But we are getting ahead of ourselves. I would like to defend my first reply first which again is that nearly all evidences (within reason) should be considered in a debate about God. Silly evidences could easily be dismissed.
