The interest I have to believe a thing is no proof that such a thing exists.

If God didn't exist, it would be necessary to invent him.

God is an hypothesis, and, as such, stands in need of proof: the onus probandi rests on the theist.

God's existence needs to be established independently before he can be brought into account for causation; it cannot be assumed at the start.

I don't accept the currently fashionable assertion that any view is automatically as worthy of respect as any equal and opposite view. My view is that the moon is made of rock. If someone says to me 'Well, you haven't been there, have you? You haven't seen it for yourself, so my view that it is made of Norwegian Beaver Cheese is equally valid' - then I can't even be bothered to argue. There is such a thing as the burden of proof, and in the case of god, as in the case of the composition of the moon, this has shifted radically. God used to be the best explanation we'd got, and we've now got vastly better ones. God is no longer an explanation of anything, but has instead become something that would itself need an insurmountable amount of explaining. So I don't think that being convinced that there is no god is as irrational or arrogant a point of view as belief that there is. I don't think the matter calls for even-handedness at all.

If they really had proof of the allegations, they would be in the indictment.