This is an argument that I've heard several times, and I'll state it flatly:

Generally, it is not true.

Sure, there are those that 'deconvert' due to stress, etc. and just 'hate God', which I feel is valid enough in itself, but its beside the point.

To plagiarize another:
If solid evidence of god(s) were to arise there would be a brief scepticism, then atheists would be the first on board. Atheism is the result of dealing with the evidence you have in the universe you live in, not any of the crap you wish/imagine/hope you have in the universe you wish/surmise/intuit you lived in.

If flaming letters appeared in the sky declaring "Hi, I'm God. My real religion is X, the universe was created by Y and the meaning of life is Z"

The majority of atheists would make sure the flaming letters were not a hoax, examine Y, discuss Z and if it all made sense quit atheism and join religion X in droves.

Religions, as they are, would declare The letters a demonic deception, ban the teaching of Y, declare Z heretical and start the largest holy war in history.

But until then atheists work with what they got.

This is in reference to the free-thinking atheist, and it pretty well lays it out. I'd say that the vast majority of atheists, at least those that you encounter that indicate that they're atheists are that way due to no evidence of a God, and any arguments that they cannot deny are those for a 'superfluous' or unnecessary god.

A deistic god is rather interesting in a philosophical way, but it is in no way an argument, for, say, the Christian God (who is a personal god).