Nonstance atheism is also called weak atheism, and the amount of weak atheists that still want to argue about it amazes me.

Have you considered you can be a weak atheist but otherwise have strong interest in debating religion, philosophy and ethics and maintaining strong convictions about it?

I concur with you, “non-belief” is a position! Otherwise, what the hell are they arguing about? Ignorance itself?

There are many things around the subjects of philosophy, religious discussion and ethics to engage with beyond specifically "the existence of god". Some people might just find it fun for its own sake.

The critique is that absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence. So if disbelief is justified only by “I haven’t seen proof,” then it risks becoming an argument from ignorance.

Would you expect someone who has seen no empirical evidence or convincing argument to believe in a god, out of interest?