Soul

Maybe you don't. But there may be many who do.If we are going to start accepting personal feelings about things as evidence for their existence then the evidence for Hindu Gods is very compelling indeed.
The evidence for the existence of Santa or the Tooth fairy also need to be taken into account.People feel many things that are not real. Feelings are not evidence for existence.
At what point do we take the feelings of paranoid delusion as evidence for the "fact" that "they" really all are out to get us?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

So anything anyone feels can be justified as evidence to themselves?If I feel that you do not deserve to live do I have "evidence" that killing you is the right thing to do?Is evidence our means of differentiating true from false? If so how can subjective feelings subject to mood and mental state possibly be described as "evidence"?Doesn't this just amount to whatever I think is true must be true? With all the obvious flaws that this posittion necessarily has?

Where do "think" and "believe" seperate?
No it is based on assumption.Without real evidence, empirical evidence, anything else is speculation and assumption. Some speculation and assumption is valid and some is not.Assumption of the ordinary and mundane is ultimately based on repeated empirical experience.
Assumption of the extraordinary and spectacular (omniscient omnipotent beings, everlasting etheral souls etc. etc.) frankly borders on the delusional.Apart from anything else you are misusing the word evidence.
Evidence is how we differentiate between that which is true and that which is not. If a form of evidence can equally support two mutually exclusive conclusions either, or neither, of which may be true then it is no sort of evidence at all.You "feel" that you have a soul. (Lets assume) I "feel" that you have no soul. The "evidence" is equal and opposite. It is not evidence. It is assumption with regard to subjective feeling on both counts.The use of the word "evidence" is being used to legitimise things which do not warrant that claim. Evidence is not just something that can be used to suggest both the truth and falsehood (plus anything in-between) of any iven claim.You should see the "Probability of God's Existence" thread regarding this topic as this one and that are converging on the same areas.

No No No. How many things do you "confidently believe" do not exist because there is no evidence for them at all?Thor, Zeus, Santa, Tooth Fairy etc. etc. etc. Are these assumptions about their inexistence equally valid with assumptions that they do exist?
There is nothing but a lack of evidence to base any conclusions or assumptions on in each of these cases.Reliable assumptions are borne of repeated everyday and very empirical experience.
When you start claiming that assumptions of things that are extraordinary are equally valid with those that are mundane you are intentionally conflating and confusing words like "evidence", "belief", "assumption" and "knowledge" in order to justify and somehow legitimise your own evidenceless beliefs.I know I exist
I can reliably assume that you exist.
There is no basis on which to reliably assume that a soul exists. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Conclusions are borne of empiricall tested and verified hypotheses.How do you go about distinguishing "think" and "believe"....? In the absence of any reliable evidence we make assumptions based on relevant experience, personal prejudice and philosophical bias.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.