What came first, the atheist or the theist?

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

It's not "non evidence" it's "non empirical evidence". The 'non' bit applies to the empiricism of the evidence. It's still evidence!

Okay, fine. If you want to play the dictionary.com game of useless semantics, then let's play the dictionary.com game of useless semantics.

Empirical Evidence
em·pir·i·cal   /ɛmˈpɪrɪkəl/ Show Spelled[em-pir-i-kuhl] Show IPA
–adjective
1. derived from or guided by experience or experiment.
2. depending upon experience or observation alone, without using scientific method or theory, esp. as in medicine.
3. provable or verifiable by experience or experiment.

ev·i·dence   /ˈɛvɪdəns/ Show Spelled [ev-i-duhns] Show IPA noun, verb, -denced, -denc·ing.
–noun
1. that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.
2. something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign: His flushed look was visible evidence of his fever.
3. Law . data presented to a court or jury in proof of the facts in issue and which may include the testimony of witnesses, records, documents, or objects.
–verb (used with object)
4. to make evident or clear; show clearly; manifest: He evidenced his approval by promising his full support.
5. to support by evidence: He evidenced his accusation with incriminating letters.

So it seems that 'non-epirical evidence' literally means the following:
Prooving something (evidence) without (non -) experience, observation, experimentation, or method (epirical)

Thus, you are telling me that evidence without proof is evidence of somthing.
Once again - utter nonsense. Evidence without proof is evidence of nothing which is not truely evidence. Evidence's very definition depends, quite literally, on proof. It's up there on digital black and white.

If you've managed to prove anything with this semantic dabbling, you've proven that the term 'empirical evidence' is a redundant term.