Would you really believe if you had evidence?

You have hit the nail on the head. People will believe/disbelieve what they like to believe/disbelieve. Reality can hang itself. Period.

So because holocaust deniers exist, therefore atheists are like holocaust deniers? Don't really see your logic there.

Edit: Let me correct you, even with proof *some* people tend to not believe some things for whatever reason. If you're not claiming atheists are like that then I really don't see your point. And if you are claiming that then you bear the burden of proof to show something really obvious that we're denying.

agreeing with something and believing it exists are two different things.

I'd argue you do believe the holocaust happened, but i do hope you disagree with it.

If there was evidence the god of a specific religion existed, and that religion was correct about the character of that god, it would be dumb to not believe that god exists,but that still wouldn't mean i agree with that god.

Viva la revulotion

First off, your moving the goal posts from "evidence" in your question to "proof" in your paragraph demonstrates that you are either dishonest or you are ignorant as to what constitutes evidence and proof.

Second, if there were any empirical evidence that a god, any god, exists, I would evaluate the evidence and adjust my views accordingly. That still does not determine if I would agree with or follow said god.

At least the holocaust and christianity have something in common - genocide.

There is the supernatural, which is things that aren't proven by science, and the natural, which is things that are. Then there is the philosophical, like are you yourself, or the universe formed into a being who thinks they are only themself?

If there was evidence, I wouldn't have to believe

It ust goes to show how stupid people really are.