Well, I am an atheist and believe that it is extremely likely that unicorns really exist.
Let me explain why.
We have very strong grounds for believing in the existence of an infinite number of paralell universes.
The probability that unicorns would appear either through evolution or through the chaotic motion of matter (as Boltmann’s brains) is incredibly low, but more than zero.
But if there exist an infinite space of possibilities, the probability that unicorns exist is equal to 1, it is certain that there exist an infinite number of unicorns in the multiverse.

There would even be an infinite number of flying stinking spaguetti Monsters and Dick Cheneys.

As atheists, we are better off giving up such analogies and providing positive arguments for the inexistence of God.

It is of not much consequence as to whether god exists or not. As through the ages man has used such arguments to explain all to which he does not know the answer. it is so transparent. That is the reason god is invisible I guess. As long as people do not look too deeply or ask for questions to have answer,s the myth of god will persist. It gives reasons for people to fear, hate, be righteous. It gives reason to feel safe and loved even if (maybe especially if) you are unlovable. It gives a pass for all that people see is wrong with themselves. It sometimes gives them the power to change because they think there is something more than themselves of their side. I never argue for the dissolution of anyone's belief system as they wouldn't have this belief if they didn't need it. To them it is comfort and safety. To me it is fear, anger and superstition. I simply say "I do not believe." and if they persist I walk away. Debate over. I won.

i agree with the point being made here, but the example leaves something to be desired. a smartass would take up the gauntlet and say:

"a pink unicorn must by definition reflect visible light. an invisible unicorn must by definition reflect no visible light. therefore, a unicorn by definition cannot be both pink and invisible; therefore, no such creature exists. your turn."

Caitlin, the burden of proof is on the person making the claim if and only if their claim is THAT something happened or exists. This is because it is impossible to prove that something doesn't exist (for instance, European hunters and animal experts said the duck-billed platypus didn't exist when explorers came back with stories about them, but they could not PROVE that they didn't exist... until we found out that they do exist... but WE had to prove it existed for society to accept it, not the other way around). Thus, it is up to Christians to prove that god exists, rather than requiring atheists to prove that it doesn't.

The grammar here is atrocious, but I like the concept. However, a more logical argument would be that burden of proof lies on the one making the extraordinary claim, not the one rejecting the claim and taking the default position of neutrality.