Personally, I said the pledge as-is for many years, since at that age it was just words. When I became aware of the meaning of what I had been saying for years I discovered that the pledge to our government included a proclamation of subservience to a character in someone else's story.
It wasn't a lie, per se, it was just an unfamiliar story slipped into what was meant to be a unifying pledge. I started putting a short silence in place of those two words...
And this was LONG before I found out that those very two words had been added into the text fairly recently, within my parents' lifetime. If I were to take a highlighter to a printout of the Pledge of Allegiance, those would be the two words I marked as odd. And lo and behold, they actually were interlopers.
There are many different types of non-theists, just as there are many different types of theist. There are the bombastic eliminate-all-religion-everywhere atheists and there are the "god hates fags" angry-sign-shakers like those from the Westboro Babtist Church. So I can't say that NO atheists are trying to eliminate all religion everywhere anymore than I can say that all religious people are moral, fair, and kind.
Those that seek to eliminate religious bias in our shared government generally aren't trying to eliminate all religion everywhere. No one (that I know of) is saying the pledge should be "...one nation, godless, indivisible..." anymore than polytheists are trying to make it "...one nation, under the gods, indivisible".
"Under god", "godless", "under the gods"... Each phrase excludes those that would prefer one of the others. Does there have to be a winner here? Are any of these worldviews so insecure that they MUST have this official confirmation chanted by every schoolchild?
Original, historical, traditional, unadulterated... These are often cited as cherished values of long-standing religions. Why not go back to the original, historical, traditional, and unadulterated Pledge?
Why IS "god" dividing the indivisible anyway?