" 

 :::This is incredible! You clearly have a warped concept of ""Nuetral Point of View."" Let me be explicit by using bold text: 

 Stating that dieties are hypothetical is a Point of View  

 :::To the theist, deities are (not ""might be"").  To the atheist, deities are not (not ""might be"").  Only to the agnostic, deities might be.  Let me use a different verb to be clear. 
 :::To the theist, deities exist (not ""might exist"", they have no doubt).  To the (strong) atheist, deities do not exist (not ""might not exist"").  Only to the agnostic (and perhaps weak atheist), deities might exist.   
 :::In order to write from a nuetral standpoint, you must write how each group believes things to be, not how all groups believe things from the agnostic ""might be"" standpoint.  That's like saying ""George Bush MIGHT BE president"" because you're a democrat who's mad about the Florida election fiasco.  Whether or not your opinion is valid, the FACT is that Bush is president, so you must write the FACTS.  The FACT is that THEISTS believe that God(s) EXIST(S).  Not that they might exist, but that they do exist. 
 :::So, for the last time, please stop trying to insert your pathetic attempt at writing into this otherwise fine article.  Your minority opinion has been heard and countered.  Just because you have a minority opinion doesn't mean you're correct. Just because the majority disagrees doesn't mean it's some sort of tyrannical majority rule. If you were screaming that we should modify the Earth article because Earth is obviously flat, you would have a second incorrect minority opinion. 
 :::Go back to school, learn some basic logic and writing skills, and then try again.  "