Ed Halliwell has a must-read essay at The Guardian on God and Buddhism. As he says, in the current debates between theists and atheists, we Buddhists find ourselves in an odd place.
For the most part, the Buddhist position on the God question is neither yes nor no. Although some Buddhists consider themselves to be atheists, and some (sorta kinda) conceptualize the buddhas and bodhisattvas as godlike beings, the Buddha taught that belief in God is irrelevant. Believing in God or not believing in God will not help you realize enlightenment.
OK, so far. But I'm a compulsive mediator; by instinct, I take everybody's side at once. It pains me when atheists dismiss the God of monotheism as a "sky fairy," because I know my theist friends to be thoughtful and intelligent people whose understanding of God is far more subtle and sophisticated. As Ed Halliwell writes, "Part of what makes the argument [about God] so comical is how the concept of 'God' onto which atheists project is rarely the same as the one defended by believers."
At the same time, I take the side of atheism when someone argues that people need religion to be moral. At a time when much of the planet is rocked in violence and atrocity connected to religion, such an argument is, um, dumb. Whenever someone makes that argument I almost want a giant hand to come out of the clouds to smack them.
In my experience, good socialization is a better indicator of basic good behavior than religious beliefs. I will trust a well-socialized atheist over a religious psychopath any day.
I see belief in God as neither right nor wrong, but as a potential upaya. Could atheism also be a upaya? Well, why the bleep not? I think how one holds beliefs or not-beliefs is far more critical than the thing believed in, or not. (If you need to re-read that last sentence a few times for sense, I understand.)
The Buddha's refusal to make a declaration on the God question may seem like an evasion, but it was anything but. Disciples were always asking the World-Honored One to answer the Big Questions, like who they might have been in a past life, or who they might be in the future, and his response -- that the questions were unskillful -- denied them the dead-end comfort of certainty. Instead he left them dangling in the vast openness of What is this? Upaya, indeed.