As Richard Dawkins would say, just because there are two sides to the argument doesn't mean they each have 50/50 plausibility. The fact is, to me, it is far more likely there is not a god than the possibility that there is. I believe the burden of proof is on the religious to convince us of his existence, because the observable universe is apparently without god--- that is, he cannot be experienced tangibly, which is as good as him not existing. I'm an Atheist and I live my life every day without God and I'm happy about it. Even if he did exist, I wouldn't believe Atheists would go to hell anyway. Only a petty, human-like God would be so upset not all of his 'subjects' worshipped him that he would send some of them to a fiery pit. I'd expect him to be more amused and interested in theories about why he did not exist. To me, God the way he's protrayed by religion is much like a Mayan sun god, somebody you must bow to and please because they're wrought with pitiful human feelings like anger and jealousy. If I believed in God, I would be a Deist.
Luckily, I don't. "Thank god" for Atheism and evolution.