Ps: as for unicorns. I am not a solid believer in them but did a creature with a horn exist in history? I have not researched it at all. Seems like a strange thing to make up for no reason. Did a rare creature on the edge of extinction live at one point in human history that had one horn pointing straight out and had four legs??? Perhaps.
Again it is weird to have a mythical creature that is so powerless. I see no reason to fabricate it. Interestingly it seems to cross many cultures so I would need to research the origin of the unicorn. I Know, unicorns do not exist today or in the past several thousand years.
if it did exist was it a four legged animal that through oral traditions has been changed to a white horse like creature from a sheep the size of a deer? was there an albino deer with a freak horn that some tribe felt was significant? I don't know, it could have seeds in reality, just doubt it was magical.
This does exemplify the problems that can be associated with words and labels. 'Unicorn' and 'creature with a horn' are not necessarily referring to the same type of entity. A rhinoceros, for example, would indeed be a 'creature with a horn', but we're pretty clearly not
talking about rhinos here. The descriptors you have given as possible 'unicorns' either a) apply to a number of known existing creatures or b) describe something that is other than a 'unicorn', depending on who you are talking to and what the context is
. While you and I and most everyone can certainly agree that currently there are creatures that have horns, and that there is a pretty good likelihood that there had been other creatures with horns in the past, what we're agreeing to and talking about isn't
'a mythical creature with the shape of a horse, horn on its forehead, with gifted intelligence and supernatural powers of healing'.
The relevancy here comes from the word 'god'. When someone asks 'does god exist', they, in all likelihood, have a number of characteristics in mind associated with the word 'god'. And some of those characteristics probably have no evidence to suggest truth or falsity - 'god is love'. k...that's ill-defined enough where I can just say 'I don't know' to that. Sometimes people are asking 'does god, the all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving entity exist'? Some atheists here, including myself, think that with what we currently know about reality can readily say with some confidence that 'no, that being does not exist'. How about the question 'does god, the initial condition of reality, exist'? I can go with 'I don't know' as well, though I have no data or evidence to suggest the truth of that claim. I nominally go with the answer 'no' to that one as well. You don't have to - you want to go with 'I don't know' with that go for it.
If there is a more coherent definition of 'god' that you want to present, we can discuss the validity of a gnostic position in regards to his/her/its/their existence. Without any
definition, then no, of course it would be illogical to take a gnostic position - there is nothing defined to take a position on! We may as well be talking about the validity of taking a gnostic position on the existence of 'Qlikaskid7849kiki-botico'.
I suggest (and I may be overstepping my bounds here) that you adopt the label ignostic atheist. That's the label I use for myself, so I'm a little biased here. But you appear to agree that, for some concepts of 'god', one can reasonably say 'no, that don't exist' (e.g. the god entity that hangs out and actively causes crap like floods and earthquakes and makes people speak in tongues and all that jazz). For other concepts of 'god', you probably will adopt 'I don't know, doesn't seem like it, but I don't know' because you would have insufficient data or evidence to make a confident distinction (e.g. the god entity that exists in some other inaccessible plane of existence that does not, in anyway, interact with our plane of existence and in principle has no effect whatsoever and is completely indistinguishable from non-existence.).