It is illogical for someone to disbelieve in God.

As a side note, I consider Mr Hitchens to be a foolish man, saying that he would rather go to hell than bow down to God. Hitches ideal god would be himself with the power that the Christian God has. Hitches comes across as a very arrogant, proud, overconfident, supercilious, self-important person, and his looks seem to match. "To assume would not be irrational, maybe arrogant yes, but assumptions are part of rational thought, we all assume for example, in order to function that existence is." This fallacious, to assume anything is irrational, despite what is being assumed. To assume that what is, is existence, although almost everyone does it, it is a bad example. A famous quote by Descartes suggests that existence is justified by thought and not by experience. "I think and therefore I am." is sufficient enough to correctly determine that to think or to have a thought rationally justifies that existence is. You can't hallucinate in your thoughts, but you can empirically. So to have a presupposition doesn't make something rational, despite how many people do it, it does not make it anything other than irrational. In other words, to assume is to presuppose something is true before applying logical thinking to the assumption, for example; if I assume that everyone who lives in America eats McDonald's, then I am presupposing that there is evidence for my assertion without actually knowing what the evidence is, or for that matter, if there is any. And evidence works by logic and reason. My opponent has made a presupposition that atheists assume there is no God without any evidence, but being sure that the knowledge of giving proof that God does not exist, exists. My opponent is heeding towards the recurring Demon, a philosophical term to describe our problem with foundationism. What do we base the legitimacy of reality upon? Is the question, my opponent is suggesting it is something which can only be assumed. I differ greatly, I would argue that at least God (but I really know it to be the Bible) is the foundation of reality where no presupposition can be applied to assume. Empiricism, morality, logic, etc all have presuppositions attached to the credibility of their legitimacy to them being sufficient enough to demonstrate knowledge. In other words, they themselves cannot account for knowledge, but they directly supply necessary uses in finding knowledge given that they are based on a foundation which is not designed for any presuppositions. If atheism is true then one can only go by their own presupposition of what logic is or isn't, and to encounter a credible conclusion, one must include all possible realities and then disprove all of them until he is left rationally believing atheism is true. For example; to irrationalise solipsism would be considerably difficult for an atheist, this would be due to the atheists understanding that he or she has presupposed something as true before rationalising that it is true. You cannot irrationalise a belief that includes the very thing you are trying to disprove. Solipsism includes the idea of logic, it in fact runs off of logical thinking, yet to say it is incorrect by presupposing that it is, is irrational, you must first give reason for why logic is legitimate in the search for knowledge. So to say God cannot exist, with that in mind, it is by far arrogant, yet more importantly, very irrational. It would be far easier and rational to believe in God, not only does the belief in God go by logical thinking (which I will explain later on), but it eliminates all other possibilities of possible realities. God and solipsism cannot both exist, since God is an external from the mind, the none existence of God isn't necessarily. Dr. William Lane Craig, as my opponent rightly said, uses the very argument that I used in my last round. The argument, I believe, is very valid. Hard atheists assume that God cannot exist, or in other words, they assume that God does not exist, and as I have already discussed, to assume is to presuppose something without reason. To say there is no evidence for God, isn't a reason, it is a perception, this is philosophically proved by people concluding two or more conclusions from the same thing. If it was a reason, then it would justify that God does not exist, but it doesn't justify that, rather it justifies that people can conclude different things from the same thing. Hard atheism rather, cannot exist. Since it makes the claim that God cannot exist, therefore pointing to the prospect that God doesn't exist, but to assure that God doesn't exist, would need evidence. This hits a problem, since you cannot find any evidence that would disprove God's existence, then there is no reason to presume that God cannot exist. An atheist has every right to believe that God cannot exist, however because an atheist decides to believe that, it doesn't mean logic and reason will follow his assertion that God cannot exist. Still however, my opponent hasn't made a good enough distinction between agnosticism and weak atheism. In fact my opponent has made a fallacy in his distinction, he said that an agnostic is someone who believes that something is unknowable, and that a weak atheist is someone who suggests that there is no evidence for the existence of God. But this is simply false, an agnostic can also say that there is either no evidence (or is evidence) for God and against God, yet still be an agnostic and assume that God existence is simply unknowable. Of course some agnostics will favor there being evidence for or against God, yet they will say, "Just because there is evidence against God, doesn't mean evidence for God doesn't exist or that God doesn't exist." They are just saying that it is unknowable with the current evidence for or against God to claim and know that either God does or doesn't exist. Note that hard atheism suggests that God cannot exist, but hard atheism must therefore give knowledge to suggest how God cannot exist, this would mean that according to their logic, there is knowledge that God doesn't exist. An agnostic can still have an opinion on the matter, saying it is either more or less likely for either case to be true. This therefore debunks my opponents definition of weak atheism. Therefore causing weak atheism to be no different to agnosticism. However, if weak atheism is no different to agnosticism, then agnosticism is no different to weak theism, meaning weak theism is no different to weak atheism. Ultimately meaning the logic used in both sides are being used in the same way, just that two different conclusions are being with drawn. But this of course is assuming that logic is legitimate in finding and discovering objective claims (knowledge). Therefore to have objectives, there must be a mind behind the rationalising of the objectives being legitimately true. Otherwise the objective claims would merely be subjective claims seeming to be objective claims. Therefore to rationalise a claim, one must entice the workings of logical thinking, that one must be God, thus atheism is false, and theism is true according to logic and reasoning, making atheism illogical. To test this against truth, it must be true according to reasoning and logic that God really does exist. If God does not exist, then truth is subject, which makes no sense, thus being irrational, subjective truth is really objective. In that, the truth is that there is no truth, this is contradicting and self refuting (the same claim refuting it's self). Therefore for subjective truth to exist, logic and reason cannot exist. Thus if there is no God (atheism is true), then logic and reason do not exist either, concluding that atheism is illogical. Personal note: I personally believe that the Christian God makes my argument make total sense, but since I am arguing for any old god, my argument seems less convincing. Please take note of this when voting, thank you.