Your point here is accurate, that atheism tends to be a response to theists and their claims in public and society in general, especially actions that violate law, like teaching Christian ideas in schools. When creationists made a huge effort to take over the Kansas school board in the 1990's it resulted in an equally huge response, and helped bring atheists to the forefront of society as good stewards of the constitution and freedom. Even liberal and moderate theists were on the side of atheists in resisting the creationists.Would it be less confrontation and heated debate if religious people let the agnostics and ateists come to them, instead of trying to "save" the ateists?
It's not satisfaction that atheists look for, it is reasonable beliefs. If you look close at disalogs most atheists are tolerant of theists and their rituals. It is what theists challenge what is reasonable, or logical, or factual, or knowledge then atheists, and even liberal theists, will chime in with corrections.It look like many atheists are curious about why religious people believe what they do.
But how can religious people give an answer that the atheists are satisfied with?
So correct, logical, factual, reasonable answers is what atheists are looking for. If a theist can't provide these then the dialog will continue. We do see some theists get upset that their particular beliefs are not accepted by atheists, as if the theist is loooking for approval and support. That is an issue that isn't ideally part of debate.