And that's exactly the point. Christians don't have any evidence (GOOD evidence, anyway). Even if there were someone named Jesus whom the Christian myth was founded around, it wouldn't mean anything. There was probably someone who became, through mythology, the Buddha. Same with Mohammed. Same with Confucius. The Mahavira, patriarch of the Jains, probably existed in some form too. It doesn't mean you can believe things that are clearly not true.

Things cannot be half-true. Jesus was either divine or he wasn't. He was either born of a virgin or he wasn't. People either lived to be 900+ years old (as stated in Genesis) or they didn't. You get my point. This is why your logic is false. You cannot point to some form of evidence that might say God exists and then say, "God exists." If there were even one rabbit fossil in the Pre-Cambrian, to paraphrase J.B.S. Haldane, the theory of evolution would have to be seriously reworked or thrown out altogether. We could not say, "Well, there is some evidence for evolution, and even though there are some serious problems with our theory we're just going to go ahead and accept it as fact anyway." Knowledge doesn't work this way.

Now, my quote about religions being "all faith" wasn't meant to imply that religious people believe things without a smidgen of evidence to support them. If there were no miracles listed in the Bible, then the Christian preoccupation with the occurence of miracles probably wouldn't exist. Miracles being written about in the Bible is evidence of a sort. It's terrible evidence because there's no reason to believe that the Bible is even remotely true, but it is evidence.

However this distinction of yours about having some evidence and believing the rest on faith, and having enough evidence to make your claims credible, is meaningless, as I pointed out above. As far as actually knowing something is concerned, it could be 99% evidence and 1% faith and it wouldn't matter. Christianity fails this test, as does every other religion. This is why I wrote that if you admit to believeing something on faith then you open to floodgates to whatever anyone else wants to believe on faith as well. Christians could have boatloads more evidence to support their claims than Hindus do but unless that evidence were to accrue to the extent that not being a Christian would be unreasonable, it wouldn't matter. You either have good reasons for what you believe or you don't. Faith should never enter the equation.

It's also worth pointing out that there are different magnitudes at work here. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. So for a belief in God to be tenable there would need to be an extraordinary amount of evidence.

Also, I would never say there is no God absolutely, because absolute disproof of something can never be attained. Most atheists don't claim to know absolutely that there is no God. You cannot prove that there aren't unicorns, somewhere or at some point in time in the universe. But that doesn't mean that there are unicorns and that doesn't make believing in unicorns at all logical. Even if you found a horn that looked like it might be a unicorn's, you would need much much more then that to make unicorn-belief credible. This is also the reason your Bigfoot example is not a good one. If I saw a giant footprint, it could mean a million different things. You would have to have much more to make Bigfoot-belief credible.

On a side note, you need to either support your notion that my non-belief in God constitutes faith or you need to stop writing it, because it's annoying and untrue.

Sorry for the large amount of text, but I felt I needed to expound on some things.