Hello all, and Oats! (get it? haha)
Nice discussion! I have looked it over and would like to chime in.
''Babies have a lack of belief, Athiest have an anti belief, which still requires rationality as a basis. (atheists have) evidence of nothing'' - Oats
Belief is the psychological state in which an individual holds a proposition or premise to be true. (atheists, theists qualify)
Rationality is the way humans come to conclusions when considering things most intently. (atheists, theists qualify)
evidence is a tool to determine the truth to an assertion. (atheists qualify partially)
In any applicable legal context, the nature of theism vs atheism is such that the onus would definitely rest on you in this case, Oats. Nonetheless...
If you incorporate contemporary principles of law like burden of proof/benefit of assumption, then you must support your argument robustly. In this case science may test your claims, as it does in a court of law when applicable. Why should Theists provide evidence? Because they are claiming the existence of something (deity) which is not plainly shown to humans. The atheist ''claim'' is simply a response to the theist one; It cannot stand alone. Without theism there is no atheism. (that's why there is a prefix attached)
Since belief and reason cannot be tested scientifically, we are left with evidence.
A historical account is not sufficient to support a claim as substantial as the existence of a god. Neither is a broad following. Thus, you cannot support your claim. Alternatively, Theism could argue the 'benefit of assumption'. In this case, atheism will point to numerous deficiencies in the testaments with regards to modern science. In the legal and scientific frameworks, religion is rapidly discredited; it is false.
I suggest in the future you get as far from these frameworks as possible, when discussing your religious beliefs. If anything, they do not fairly attest the moral, spiritual and philosophical riches of Christianity; science and law are indeed useless in the moments where you feel closest to God. So why employ them on theological grounds?
On the other hand, you are entitled to debating your beliefs along scientific and legal lines (we all are). If this is your wish, I recommend you seek out higher education. The study of theology, for example, strives to understand the construct of religion and it's interaction with all levels of mankind. It's one of the richest, most intellectual fields of study in my opinion.
Given our reliance on science and legal systems in the 21st century - we're all ''guilty'' of it - compliance with religion is kind of like walking a tightrope. It is a beautiful challenge, as it requires the meticulous balance of one set of beliefs (in medicine, physics, politics, legal justice, economics) and another set of beliefs.(in the teachings of God). They are often in agreement, but often opposed.
(gay marriage, the afterlife, child-rearing, etc)
In your case, (unlike atheists') the tricky thing is you must have faith in both ''systems'' to an extent. Your title tells me you've lost touch a little of the importance of science and law in your life. If this is the case, the perhaps you're the one who is taking a chance?
Kindly and honestly,
Simon