Just responding to this because it is the simplest, most straightforward way to disprove religion. Maybe not God (As we cannot disprove God any more than we can PROVE God's existence), but definitely puts a stake in Religion and its representations of god. 

Just because sceptics throw away any rational argument and revelations because it's not empirical to them does not mean they are right. on the contrary. If they are so sure there is no God, the burden is just as much on them as it is on us, as we have provided many an argument as they have failed to empirically disprove  anything.

"Just because sceptics throw away any rational argument and revelations because it's not empirical to them does not mean they are right."

What do you consider a rational argument and revelation? Subjective experiences bring you nowhere, for the main reason that everyone can make such a claim and get away with it.

"If they are so sure there is no God, the burden is just as much on them as it is on us,"

That's only correct for those who make the claim that there is no god. Most atheists just don't accept your claim and simply reject it. It's the same you do with all the other gods out there. So far, the burden of proof is on the one who makes the claim. Otherwise I could claim that a Smurf created the universe and claim that the burden of proof is on you. Now disprove me. 

"as we have provided many an argument as they have failed to empirically disprove  anything." 

I've yet to see a valid argument for god which isn't born out of ignorance. You can surely provide one.

I feel like this thread is just going in circles. Anyway: the ontological, teleological and cosmological arguments (as also outlined in the thread). The Cosmological argument being the most logically sound. Couple that with the vast amount of revelations (both biblical and historial) and you have a quite solid foundation.

The skeptics and empiricists discard revelation very easily, but if they then claim that God does not exist, the burden of proof is on them.

Well, the probability of a necessary being or event goes a long way of course. As for revelation, I meant that both in the biblical sense as in the historical sense (the various events where people experienced revelation). Revelation in the personal sense would be a form of abduction, since you take God as an inference to the best explanation for an experience.

This does not disprove anything at all. It's one thing to meet and disregard religious claims, it's something else to actually bring your own proof to the table. What people don't understand about proof of burden is that 1. It works both in a positive as in a negative sense & 2. Unless you're a sceptic, empirical proof isn't the only form of proof, for if that was the case, our own science wouldn't even be able to operate correctly.

Yes, this is going in circles, because I already told you what I think of those. So I take it, that you got none. I don't know why I should bother with revelation. I don't consider the Bible to be a word of God simply because of the contradiction to historical evidence. I.e. Exodus, Massacre of the Innocents... or even the Epic of Gilgamesh. For the latter, I know what the position of apologists is, so we don't have to argue about that. 

"The skeptics and empiricists discard revelation very easily, but if they then claim that God does not exist, the burden of proof is on them."

I already said that you are correct regarding this. Yet, from the information I can collect is that you accept claims without evidence simply because you like the sound of it. At least, that is what I see from you reasoning. 

We haven't established any sort of probability. As we have agreed the cosmological argument is deductive.  It is either true or false.  If we can't confirm or deny the argument, we can't make any claim about it's probability.   We can say it's not impossible, but that's about it.

As for revelation, if I believe in revelation, then that puts me in an awkward spot.  Because if I accept revelation from Christians, I'd also have to accept Muslim revelation.  Hindu revelation, Satanist revelation, and really any kind of weird personal claim anybody makes.  So unless there is a particularly good reason to accept Christian revelation, which I've never been provided with, I can't take revelation as evidence.

As for your repeated insistence that atheists have a burden of proof, no.  If they want to claim that god definitely doesn't exist, then yes, but that's not what I've seen people in this thread say.  You're trying to strawman them because the antitheist position is much easier to attack.

It is basically impossible to prove a negative.  To repeat an example I gave earlier, if I said I had a unicorn in my apartment right now, you would be completely unable to disprove it.  But I'm guessing you wouldn't believe me.  You would not believe me unless I could offer some kind of proof.  And that's what we're doing.