Yeah, with the whole "you can't say he DOESN'T either" argument there are some problems. If we put it into the perspective of something YOU don't believe (example).
So here we go; there are invisible pixies that tell people to do good or bad things and that is where we act upon things (i.e. our conscience). Well... you can't DISPROVE the magic pixies can you? Its the same deal with god; you can't completelly disprove the notion, but there is no evidence to support the positive (which is god exists). If something is going to be so VAUGE that you can't prove anything about it either way, I don't see a point in believing in it at all.
Its a big problem with god; I've NEVER seen any two people give me the SAME definition for what god actually IS. That's a pretty hard thing to reconcile with. If no one can even come to an agreement on what god actually IS, how can they say that any of them are not making it up. Before you can say god exists you sorta have to explain what you acutally MEAN by "god". It would be a LOT more compelling if ALL religious people had the same way of defining god. But not even TWO people have the same definition, which ties back to Freud, showing that this god character is projected only in the mind of these people that want to believe (they believe in whatever god suits their personality the best).