One of the problems is the use of the word "belief". Sometimes this accompanies a lack of evidence which undermines its credibility.

As I have stated before, there are no unilateral atheists. There are many kinds. They have
one thing in common, they don't "believe" in a supernatural supreme being.

To posit the existence of a god, you have to believe that it's there.

I think there are degrees of disbelief. There is always the possibility that someone could scientifically prove that there is a supernatural supreme being but that hasn't happened.

Someone might disprove the notion of gravity or other science such as relativity which
quantum mechanics has brought into question.

Atheism doesn't always mean being adamant about something. Anti-theism has more to do with the criticism of the practice of religion and its effect on society.

The only time I see this conversation coming into focus is when you hear of egregious
violations of civil rights or secular rights. An example would be the latest outbreak
of political Elmer Ganrtries and Tartuffes being supported by the C Street group lead by Douglas Coe called the "Family" in Washington. Now we're talking anti-theism as it applies to the negation of the Separation of Church and State.

Each atheist defines his/her position a little differently.

The question I have is what is there to discuss if there isn't a god?

Frank