Ultimately, any proof is based on assumptions that the decision of whether to accept or reject the proof cannot be logically reasoned. For example, when someone recounts an incident or a past experience, the listeners have to decide whether to believe it or not, and this decision depends on the assumptions of each listener: such as, to what extent do they trust humans in general? Accordingly, one must ask to what extent do they trust this particular person? And, to what extent is the story plausible? This is not a matter of convincing proof, but of a definite personal inclination.
For example, when it comes to testimony in relation to an extraordinary event, such as a divine revelation, then those who assume that a divine revelation is a reasonable and plausible event will easily accept this testimony as true, while those who assume such a revelation is unreasonable will be more skeptical.
Those who think that human beings are stupid and bad will prefer to think that these arguments or proofs are a delusion or a lie, and those who have faith in human beings will more easily accept their testimonies. Neither side is wrong in principle, as long as the assumptions are presented as plausible. Moreover, the decision to question the evidence in favor of the existence of GOD, or to choose not to believe in it, is also a legitimate decision on the part of a listener (atheist in this case).