The Origin of the Gods

[Tnmusicman]

Not quite. Atheists lack belief in gods. They may believe no gods exist, but that's not usually required. I speak in broadest sense.

Yes,but I'm from the old school that believes " lack of belief " is agnosticism. I use the definition provided :
Certain atheists in the mid-twentieth century were promoting the so-called “presumption of atheism.” At face value, this would appear to be the claim that in the absence of evidence for the existence of God, we should presume that God does not exist. Atheism is a sort of default position, and the theist bears a special burden of proof with regard to his belief that God exists.

So understood, such an alleged presumption is clearly mistaken. For the assertion that “There is no God” is just as much a claim to knowledge as is the assertion that “There is a God.” Therefore, the former assertion requires justification just as the latter does. It is the agnostic who makes no knowledge claim at all with respect to God’s existence. He confesses that he doesn’t know whether there is a God or whether there is no God.
But when you look more closely at how protagonists of the presumption of atheism used the term “atheist,” you discover that they were defining the word in a non-standard way, synonymous with “non-theist." So understood the term would encompass agnostics and traditional atheists, along with those who think the question meaningless (verificationists).
Such a re-definition of the word “atheist” trivializes the claim of the presumption of atheism, for on this definition, atheism ceases to be a view. It is merely a psychological state which is shared by people who hold various views or no view at all.
One would still require justification in order to know either that God exists or that He does not exist, which is the question we’re really interested in.
A deceptive game is being played by many atheists. If atheism is taken to be a view, namely the view that there is no God, then atheists must shoulder their share of the burden of proof to support this view. But many atheists admit freely that they cannot sustain such a burden of proof. So they try to shirk their epistemic responsibility by re-defining atheism so that it is no longer a view but just a psychological condition which as such makes no assertions. They are really closet agnostics who want to claim the mantle of atheism without shouldering its responsibilities.

This is disingenuous and still leaves us asking, “So is there a God or not?”

Read more: Definition of atheism | Reasonable Faith

Granted this is taken from an article but it touches on the important parts that I adhere to and why I say that the silly " I submit we are all atheists " talking point is just logically incorrect. I know the point that is being made but I still maintain thàt it's wrong to say any theist is an atheist. It's akin to saying "he's a married bachelor" because he's married but lives like he's a single man.

 

[variant]

God's exist because they are a convenient way for people to get other people to believe things that you would otherwise have a hard time trying to convince them of.

They are also handy to try to give the impression of knowledge of the inner workings of the universe where no real explanatory power exists.