Would you be an atheist if science and reason wasn't supportive of atheism?

[Darkstar]

My problem with "technically possible" is that it ultimately goes against reality as we know it.

If by 'it' you mean god, then yes.

Imagine you see a Pagani Huayra in your driveway, and you actually do believe it wasn't designed, it's construction, testing, painting, everything wasn't planned. The whole car came about from random chance as dust blew past your driveway over hundreds of thousands of years.

Hoyle's fallacy
Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit
In a nutshell, life evolves in a way inanimate matter cannot, and it does so in observable steps that build on each other naturally, rather than all at once, or in a totally random fashion.

We've never seen a single incident of something popping into being from nothing.

http://www.thenational.ae/news/uae-news/...ossibility
Quantum fluctuation

So I have a hard time believing the universe came about in such a random violation of all known scientific laws, and ON TOP OF THAT was fine-tuned.

Random violation of all know scientific laws? Seems a bit exaggerated. Finely tuned for what? Considering that most of the universe is lifeless, I don't know how well tuned it is. Not to mention the possibility that other forms of life than our own could exist.

Unicorns are also conceivable, i.e we can conceive of them.

But until we have concrete evidence we cannot claim they are true.

So you run off, collect your evidence and then you can claim your Nobel prize.

It's not conceivability on its own that matters. It's conceivability + necessity as part of a pool of live options.

The unicorn, if we are using a unicorn, must be one of only two possible explanations of something.

As such, your unicorn is irrelevant, while a non-physical mind capable of creating the universe actually explains something in the universe.

Unicorns make it rain by crying as they fly across the sky. Undetectable unicorns. WadduIwin?