Thank you for that amazingly well thought out essay on the subject.
How would you assess reincarnation which, unlike your example of a unicorn, has been investigated scientifically to some degree, and does appear (to some) to have a degree of validity? Would this cast in doubt the stance of the 'hard' atheist?

@Storm1752 I'd need to see the studies, methodology used, peer review, scientific support, critiques, etc. — but, even then, I'm not a scientist and my opinion on the matter should be taken with a grain of salt. Regardless, reincarnation is something I don't know how one would go about effectively and strictly testing, so I'm curious how it was done or attempted. It seems that it would require that the subject have verifiable, overwhelmingly detailed and intimate knowledge of someone else's life with absolutely no external access to that information. I think that would be very difficult to illustrate, especially for a large-scale study with many participants, but perhaps not impossible under the right conditions. That still would not be sufficient, however. Even if it were possible to show deep knowledge of someone else's life in that way, I think it wouldn't immediately point to reincarnation as the explanation. Off the top of my head (and I'm not suggesting any of these are more or less likely), someone might have visions of someone else's life, or they might commune with the dead, or they might have had a memory implant from aliens, or they might be ridiculously lucky in their guesses, or they might be a time traveler who witnessed the events firsthand. (Or it might merely be an error in methodology or someone fabricating/misinterpreting data due to their own biases in favor of reincarnation.) And then we have all the work ahead of us to show how reincarnation works, to demonstrate there's a substantive soul of some sort, that it traverses time and space independently, that it carries memories and experiences with it, and so on. I guess my default position boils down to, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." I need the extraordinary evidence in this case.

@Donotbelieve I was more succinct, but you were more fun to read.

Love it!! As an atheist I know there is a huge difference between myself and those who identify as agnostics. But I'm tired of talking about it.

Do you believe in any gods?

@xenoview I don't believe IN anything, especially supernatural entities. That possibility can't be 100% ruled out, but unlikely. A 'god' who created a place called 'hell?' As close to zero as it gets. A 'god' defined as something like a 'universal consciousness' or a 'collective unconscience?' Maybe, but I wouldn't know what that means.
I think any such thing is so far beyond our ability to comprehend, at this point in our development, it hardly warrants talking about. BUT I think reincarnation has been sufficiently documented (as has been psychism and other unexplained phenomenon) SOMETHING is there. What IS that 'something?' 'God?' No way to tell. We might be ABLE to tell someday, but not now.
Most if not all 'hard' atheists would disagree with that. In fact scoff at it.
Go ahead, but I have more 'evidence' than you do, since you have none.

@Storm1752 Why must you always cause problems? All he asked you is if you believed in any gods and somehow you arrived at the conclusion that you have more evidence. Your comments are quickly becoming irrelevant.

@Storm1752
I think you have nothing but subjective evidence about any god. Can you provide objective evidence that any god is real?

@LovinLarge And I said no.

@LovinLarge, @xenoview No and I didn't say I did.
I just said certain things I've read have led me to think it's an open question whether or not there is more to physical reality than meets the eye, NOT something 'supernatural,' but that we just don't understand yet, within physicality but beyond (at present) our ability to comprehend.
(And I said no, I don't think a 'supernatural entity' is at all likely.)

@Storm1752 You said no and then you went on to claim that you had more evidence, without actually presenting any. At the very least, let's stick to the truth.

@LovinLarge I said no, I had no evidence of a god or gods defined as a 'supernatural entity,' because I'm not claiming nor do I believe there is any such thing.
I cite only evidence for 'something like' a 'collective unconscious,' which cannot be explained precisely because if there IS any such thing, it's beyond our comprehension.
I mentioned reincarnation, which has been studied extensively and for which there is compelling circumstantial evidence.
Like I said, if you're a 'hard' atheist no amount of circumstantial evidence will be enough. But many others will be convinced.
That doesn't necessarily mean anything specific concerning the existence or nonexistence of any kind of 'god,' only that it gives one reason to pause and think about it.
If you don't think that's relevant, it just means your mind is closed and you want it to stay that way.

@Storm1752 You said, "Go ahead, but I have more 'evidence' than you do, since you have none" and then didn't cite any evidence. You hold such a prejudice against who you ridiculously call "hard" atheists that you've lost all objectivity.

@LovinLarge I cited reincarnation as evidence. It's been extensively studied and there are thousands of case studies of people who remember past lives in detail, but even though you have a computer in your hand and the internet a click away, you won't do even a cursory search to read about it, then tell me there's no evidence.
Psychism? What about Edgar Cayce? Same thing there: you dismiss it without even a glance.
I'm not saying that's hard evidence of 'god,' but it's evidence of SOMETHING which could conceivably be thought of that way, if we had any comprehension of what that might be.
And far from making ME prejudiced, that's exactly what it makes you; you've prejudged the entire subject to the point you refuse to look at any indications at all you might be wrong.

@Storm1752 By not understanding what "evidence" is, you've hit my threshold for not having anything to say that I'm interedted in. Bye.

@itsmedammit Well said. I am what I am, regardless of label, and it’s not something I spend a lot of mental energy on.

Have you previously accused the website administrators of that, and if so, how did they respond?

Belief is or should be the logical consequence of being convinced of the truth or reality of what is believed in.

A conviction is or should logically be based on evidence that can be and has been objectively verified. What has been verified and found to be true can be considered as knowledge.

Atheism is therefore the logical conclusion that the evidence put forward to prove god's existence has been verified and found to be worse than unreliable and therefore most unconvincing.

Necessity is quite another matter and mostly irrelevant to the issue of god's existence. It does not logically follow that because god is not "necessary", it would make sense to reject its existence. Are mosquitoes necessary in the food chain? Is the appendix necessary? Yet they exist.

@Klodzan :

What I meant by a "god is not necessary" is that science has shown that a creator god is not necessary in order to explain the functioning of the universe. So, why insert one? Newton thought there had to be a god in order to explain what he thought was the erratic orbit of the planets (due to faulty calculations). LaPlace, with his correct calculations, showed that no god was necessary to explain their orbits ; and modern physics/astrophysics shows us the same thing about the universe.

If one inserts a god, especially one complicated enough to create everything, and hold it in place, one must then explain how it came to be, and so on. Using Occam's Razor, the simplest explanation is that potential energy, energy has simply always existed. It is not necessary to give this energy consciousness, will/volition and call it god. And, there is especially no reason to give it human emotions like love, anger, jealousy...

But, I simply cannot prove that none exist. If I make the claim "there is no god" it is up to me to provide the evidence and that cannot be done.

As I said, I am an atheist because I see no reason whatsoever to believe in any gods. It really isn't about there being no evidence FOR a god and dismissing its existence on lack of evidence. Quite honestly, I don't know what evidence could be produced that would make me think there is a god.

I do know, if such evidence were to be produced, it would no longer be a matter of faith or belief, it would be a matter of either accepting the evidence or not.

The agnostic part of me is not holding out room that there just "might" be a god of some sort. It is the part of me that simply acknowledges that it is something that, when it comes right down to it, cannot be known/proven either way. I can only say, there is no reason to insert a god, and unless someone can show that a god is necessary I will continue to not believe in any.

About Mosquitoes and the Appendix:

As annoying as they are, mosquitoes have evolved as part of our ecosystem. If we were to remove them completely, I think we would see the negative consequences of that action and would find that they really are necessary. And, it should be said, we know, necessary or not, that mosquitoes exist.

Now the Appendix. We know it is there, and it serves a function; but, it isn't necessary for us to continue living.

Consider this: Let's say people claim there is a Thorplex Organ inside our bodies. We cannot detect it in any way nor see any results of its function. But, it is claimed to be necessary, or even responsible, for our existence (without it we die instantly). I cannot prove that this undetectable Thorplex Organ does not exist, because it is not detectable, I can only say that we can explain the functions of the body, and each of its organs, without "inserting" this Thorplex Organ; so, there is no reason to believe that it exists.

Ceritude and atheism are not congruent positions. Using Bertrand Russell's logic, I am confident that a celestial teapot in a distant planetary orbit about the sun doesn't exist. Similarly, the machinations regarding the existence of a deity are just as unlikely. Thus, I withhold my 'belief' in a deity, while at the same time lack any knowledge of such.

@p-nullifidian that celestial teapot is as mightily risible as my prose is abstruse, verbose, obtuse and obstropolous although for the prolix it's hard to top Bertrand's proof that 1 + 1 = 2 .

If you wish to indulge in the modern penchant for labeling that position of
"I'm not certain, and I genuinely don't care."
makes you Apatheist one indifferent to the existence or non existence of deity

@LenHazell53 I'm not the one who introduced the topic of labeling. I merely chose between the two terms that were presented. Please do not attack me for participating.

@BitFlipper Oh grow up it was just humour pointing a lesser known classification.
NO ONE was attacking you

@LenHazell53 "If you wish to indulge in the modern penchant for labeling" please be honest enough to acknowledge your hostility.

@BitFlipper
The "You" in this case was a simple neutral pronoun that could have been easily replaced with "we" "one" or could have been left out all-together and simply have had the sentence read " to indulge in the modern penchant for labelling"
How fucking paranoid does one have to be to assume that I was attacking you personally? What possible reason would I have had to do so?
Jesus man, as I said grow the fuck up!
Moreover, yes I do acknowledge my hostility in this reply because bloody stupidity and petulance in a grown adult does anger me!

Why not reject the common definition of 'god' and instead define it as that 'energy' to which you refer?
After all, energy cannot to created or destroyed, ergo, it has always existed.
Indeed, there's a growing questioning of the 'Big Bang' theory, in favor of the 'Big Bounce,' which holds the universe goes through an eternal cycle of expansion and contraction, but for all we know HAS ALWAYS BEEN HERE.
That falls in line with the claim 'god' has always been, and always will be. If we consider 'consciousness' as possibly a form of condensed energy, maybe WE have always been here.
I'm not saying I 'believe in' that notion; it's simply a shard of a sliver of something which may or may not have some validity. This is what some agnostics--at the very least THIS one--do, because we are not wedded to a particular 'belief system,' thus are free to speculate as wildly as we wish.

@Storm1752 That’s sort of my thinking ... if energy is neither created nor destroyed but just changes form, that implies infinity. No beginning, no end. I don’t pretend to get my head around that, but maybe the workings of the universe are just too complex for the human mind. Ergo the aspect of creation makes me agnostic.

I think we need to be careful about attributing the us-ness of humans to 'energy' and then conflating the energy in our bodies with the the word energy as used in the laws of thermodynamics. While there is always energy in our bodies (while alive) it's not "the same" energy the whole time we're alive. Every second, our bodies are converting the calories we take in into energy to do work, produce body heat, build tissue, etc.

I agree with bionicdance.

That's why I didn't include any in the question. People are entitled to that subjectivity when they are filling out there own profile. It's also one of the reasons for my question. The logic on the answers depended on their own definitions which is one of the reasons the answers would differ and why this question made an interesting post.