What came first, the atheist or the theist?

[Tiberius]

My point is that non-empirical evidence isn't evidence.

Why not? Logical proofs are non-empirical, and all of the arguments we use in science are based on logic, even the ones we use to evaluate empirical evidence. So basically if your statement is true, no evidence is evidence.

"Non-empirical proof" is an oxy-moron. You cannot ascertain truth without some evidence to support it.
Something that is true without necessarily requiring empirical proof are human concepts - such as mathmatics and morality.

True, you cannot ascertain truth without some evidence to support it, but it is a non-sequitur to say that therefore Non-empirical proof is an oxymoron. It is only an oxymoron in your mind because you think that "non-empirical" cannot possibly be evidence, when it can.

One of the earliest proofs of our existence is non-empirical. "I think, therefore I am".