Atheism Undermines Knowledge

[Neo-Scholastic]

Atheism isn't a belief in anything it is a lack of a belief in a god or gods…There are no corner stones to atheism.

The lack of belief in divinity necessarily entails other beliefs. It is these other beliefs, required to maintain that denial, to which the OP refers.

You can be an atheist and believe that there is no physical universe or that a universe is completely NOT devoid of any influence.

If you believe there is no physical universe then you are engaged in another kind of self-refuting belief or absurdity. So while not directly addressed by the OP, it falls into the same category of irrationality. Next, if it is NOT devoid of any transcendent influence, then it IS influenced by something non-physical. If you accept the existence of non-physical interactions then you are already tacitly approving a belief that contradicts the denial of divine influence.

In practice atheism is a lack of a belief in god, there is no presupposing anything. You can be an atheist and believe in ghosts and the non material world.

Okay, fine. Have it your way. There may be a very limited type of atheist that believes in paranormal non-physical phenomena. This argument would not apply to them, since I think they have already given up the game, i.e. tacit approval.

Explain why without god there can be no logical continuity.

I did that in the OP.

…I refuse to fill those gaps in knowledge with god until it can be conclusively demonstrated to exist. Otherwise, I have to accept the argument from ignorance that you seem to be advocating.

Then you misunderstood or I was not sufficiently clear. This is neither an argument from ignorance nor an attempt to fill gaps in knowledge. My point is that in order to believe, without contradiction, in the validity of inductive reasoning, you must also believe in a transcendent influence (i.e. god) that imposes regularity on causal relationships. Since atheism denies the transcendent governance of physical laws, it simultaneously denies the validity of inductive reasoning.

…people were using this exact same argument to try to demonstrate that god controlled lightning

Ultimately, god (small ‘G’) does control lighting by insuring that causes are regularly linked to specific effects. An electrical differential between earth and sky causes lighting, it does not cause flowers to bloom.