The Problem with Atheism

I'd encourage you to watch the following debate between a Christian and an atheist before reading this post, although it's not entirely necessary:
http://www.atheistdebate.org/

Anyway, one of the points Atkins, an atheist makes is that:
"Atheism is an absense of a belief in anything. It's really the foundation on which evidence must be provided for placing anything further."
The problem with such a statement is that it assumes one thing to be better than another. Why is reason better than feeling, why is logic better than assumption? Because by these things arguments are made and things proved. However, what are we proving, and how are we proving it. In saying that everything can be proved by reason, you are therefore stating a belief by which everything else flows. Why should we use reason? In trying to answer a question you must use reason, therefore you hit a roadblock, and therefore you come to an assumption: reason is the best way to figure out how things work. Note, this does not make reason incorrect, but it does require an assumption. And no matter what you come to in life, you will require such an assumption. However, what is yours?
An easy way to find this out is to take the child who asks why the sun comes up in the morning, you may say something about the earth rotating and being on an axis "But why" they again ask, and so on, until ultimately you come to a roadblock where you must answer with "I don't know", "God", "Chance", or "It just is". From those four explanations you can find out who/what your God is, and upon what you base you ulitmately base your life.
I hope you see the problem with the argument Atkins gives here, objectivity is an impossible thing to obtain, because we are subjective people, and therefore can only view things in the confines of our human bodies. In aiming to define objectivity we do it as subjective beings and such defintions require assumptions which ultimately we cannot prove.
Is belief in God any worse than in reason? Perhaps, but one can only show us so much. Why do good people die? Is there a soul? What is right? What is wrong? Do we have a soul? What makes us as humans unique? Did the universe always exist? Does anything exist outside it? What is 'love'?
All things can be answered by reason and without God. However, I would say the answers make more sense if we assume a God to be behind them all. Why? It simply makes more sense of those questions: especially to those who say the world is here because "it just is". Such an answer, does not answer the question, but instead is rather like looking at a painting and asking the curator: "who painted it? where did it come from?" and he merely says "it just did". Such an answer is not a real answer, but avoids the question.
Science is based upon theories. These theories are based on evidence, which lead us to the one that 'makes the most sense' of all this evidence. Therefore to believe in God based on the mere evidence that 'stuff exists" seems to me to be a scientific thing to do.