Being atheist is an illogical move

Unfortunately, the instigator’s title and his opening statement contradict each other, which immediately voids his entire debate. By definition: Atheism - the doctrine or belief that there is no God.This is the definition that the instigator gives, which is hardly exhaustive and I must say is a very poor definition. However, it essentially reveals the contradiction. “It is worth noting that the 'positive atheist' need not have certainty that God doesn't exist: it is a matter of belief, not knowledge.”- From the University of cambridge. (http://www.investigatingatheism.info...)Atheism is a response to theism and nothing more. It is the category of those who have said “I do not concur with your theism”. The clue is very much in the word itself. A-theismRoot of ‘a-’http://membean.com...My opponent is a christian, for example. His belief in god relies on and originates with christianity, the revelation as described in biblical text. Not science, not philosophy, but faith and ancient texts. It is not the endeavour to uncover the mystery of our origins, it is the claim that those origins are known to us, it is therefore not concerned with whether or not there exists the possibility of a god as it is the positive assertion of a god. (and the claim that they know what its likes and dislikes are as well!) Atheism likewise is not necessarily concerned with whether or not it is possible for a god to exist, it can only, by definition, be concerned with the belief that one exists ie: theism.My opponent claims that his friends are the rarest of creatures, the very lesser (almost never) spotted “gnostic a- deist” I would like to meet them, it would be worth it just to say that I have met either the cleverest or the stupidest people alive today. I have not yet met one of this kind, who claims with certainty that no god can ever have existed in the immeasurable expanse of the unknown. Nor have I heard or read any arguments for the impossibility of the existence of a god outside of our knowledge. (ask yourselves, have you?!)Lets be clear though, I would be dishonest if I did not admit that I hold quite firmly the position that your god does not exist and can not exist. I adhere to the earthly authority of reason and logic, my beliefs are at the mercy of this authority, which dictates that I must be an atheist. The authority my beliefs are subject to will not tolerate a theism which describes a god as the giver of ‘free will’ and also the mastermind of past, present and future and all that is contained within. It will not tolerate the omnibenevolent god who is also the director of malevolence. It will not tolerate the omnipresent god who also escapes the great and perpetual reach of our senses and sciences. Atheism, to clarify once more, is non adherence to theistic belief and non acceptance of a particular notion of god. In my case this applies to all notions of gods that I have thus far been presented with, but it also applies to non-adherence to any theism. (my opponent is an atheist, he just doesn’t know it)“As the Romans used the word, ‘atheist’ could be used to refer to theists of another religion, notably the Christians, and so merely to signify disbelief in their own mythical heroes.”[http://plato.stanford.edu...]Contrary to popular misconception, a far stronger attitude to take is agnosticism. The agnostic holds not simply that a god is unknown, but more, that one is unknowable.[http://www.britannica.com...] “The agnostic does not simply say, "I do not know." He goes another step, and he says, with great emphasis, that you do not know.” [Robert G. Ingersoll, "Reply to Dr. Lyman Abbott," 1890] I think I have explained quite clearly the inherent falsehood in my opponents proposition. Do I need to go on to the second part of his argument? ... Pro: “Of course this brings up the argument, and pseudo-religion, the Flying Spaghetti Monster…”I did not find relevance in any of pro’s argument from the above sentence onward, which focused primarily on supporting the ‘logical’ belief in a god, especially given that he had already stated: “no I am not looking to debate that it is logical to believe that there is a God”I did however find it somewhat irritating so I shall write a few words in response. Pro: “...the Flying Spaghetti Monster and his church. This of course is arguing that because you can not prove that a supreme deity exists that it does not exist...”No, it represents the idea that anything that exists or does not exist beyond the known world can only be attributed with the same truth value, we can only attribute to the christian god a truth value of equal measure to anything else our imaginations create. As Bertrand Russell explained:“If I were to suggest that between the Earth Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.” [http://www.cfpf.org.uk...]In regards to Einstein I will also offer a quote: “The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this.”[http://www.psaautographfacts.com...]And in regards to this:Pro: “The smartest man in the world today, whose IQ can not even be measured on the charts we have, believes he can mathematically prove Gods existence.”Well...compelling I am sure, please let me know when he presents his ‘proof’ and I will peel my palm from my face to view it.My opponent gave false attributions to his claims and thereby presented a void proposition.