The Belief of Atheism is Self-Refuting

Am I the only one who finds it slightly ironic that Lannan, who is a catholic, is accepting a debate defending atheism, which posits that his God does not exist? Funny little non-debate related thought. Anyway, I'll explain the syllogism that I posted last round.1. Atheism is the belief that God does not exist.Definitional. By agreeing to debate, he agreed to the definition.2. God is a supernatural being.A characteristic commonly associated with the Judeo/Christian God. Thus, also being definitional.3. If God is a supernatural being, then there is no direct physical evidence to His existence.Here's where the real fun starts. Lets consider things for a moment. Has there been any direct physical sightings of God, outside of the Bible? No. Are there physical signs that we can see that prove the existence of God? No. Because he is a supernatural being, and we as humans are not supernatural, we have no direct evidence to prove the supernatural. Thus, we have no direct evidence to prove His existence.My opponent may try to assert that we can use logic, which is grounded in the physical world, to prove the existence of God. However, this response is flawed because it doesn't directly prove the existence of God. We can logically follow a train of thought and arrive at some conclusion, but that doesn't always make the conclusion to be a true conclusion. Lets say that I have the following syllogism:1. When it rains, the ground gets wet.2. The ground is wet.3. It has rained recently.We can see that the conclusion logically follows from the two premises. But let's also look at the next syllogism:1. When it's snowing, there is snow on the ground.2. There is snow on the ground.3. Therefore, it's snowing.While the conclusion logically follows from the two premises, the conclusion itself is false. While it is true that if it is snowing outside, there will be snow on the ground, however that's not the only time snow can be on the ground. If the weather is cold enough, snow can last for hours or days after the original snow storm. So while there is snow on the ground, it could possibly not be snowing. Therefore, logic cannot be definitively used to prove God's existence.4. If there is no direct physical evidence, then we cannot confirm nor deny God's existence.Follows from premise three.5. If there is no physical evidence, one would have to be a supernatural being to confirm that God does not exist.This premise can easily be proven true. Lets look at our physical world. Can we confirm that an apple exists? Yes, as we have physical evidence (i.e. apple trees that grow apples) to prove that they exist. Likewise, we can also confirm that the laptop that I am currently typing on exists, as I have direct physical evidence that it does (i.e. the fact that I can type on it and make characters appear on the screen). But God is a supernatural being, which we cannot confirm using physical methods. In order to confirm something supernatural exists, one would have to be supernatural themselves (i.e. to prove that ghosts exist, one would have to by a medium to the dead). 6. If atheism is true, then atheists must be gods.Follows from premises 1, 2, and 5. If atheism is the belief that no god exists, and god is a supernatural being, one would have to be a supernatural being to definitively claim that he doesn't exist. In order to do that, one would have to be a supernatural being to do it. Since god is a supernatural being, atheists would have to be gods.7. Atheism is the belief that no God exists.Follows from the definition, which is in direct contrast to premise six. If atheists are gods, but atheism is the belief that no God exists, how is this even possible? 8. Atheism is self-refuting.Follows from premises 6 and 7.- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -I feel that I have sufficiently proved that the concept of atheism is self-refuting. I invite my opponent to try to disprove it.