This excerpt is from an interview with Douglas Adams published in American Atheist some time ago. I think it rules.
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.
You should read the whole interview, just like you should read anything by Douglas Adams. (well…maybe not the fifth book in the Hitchhiker “trilogy”; you can probably skip that one!) I was tickled even though he devotes most of it to attacking my own position of agnosticism, rather effectively I must admit. His is the kind of logic that could possibly bring me around to the atheist point of view.
Say, there are some religious folks who read this blog I think. (half or so have got to be kin because my daily hit count suggests that half or so of my readership has got to be kin :D) Anyone want to take a stab at refuting the above passage by Adams on logical grounds? He’s calling you guys the arrogant ones. You gonna take that from him?