Ok, well some simple observations

If they're Empirically inclined (e.g. Richard Dawkins) then they are more likely to refer to the "comfort" obtained by being religious and perhaps to imagine they might like to think God existed (i.e. their atheism stems primarily from a denial of there being means of confirming God's existence; insofar as they are empirical, they can make no value judgements on the concept of God but can observe that it might serve any number of personal functions)

If they're more Rationalist in bent (e.g. Christopher Hitchens) then they are more in the business of worldview and values, in which case more likely to say something to the effect of "God doesn't exist, and thank goodness" (i.e. their atheism stems primarily from a rejection for one reason or the other of the ethical, social or worldview aspects of a religion and so, naturally, they dislike the God of that religion)

Dawkins is not the best example of the former, as he's more equivocal about religion and does often lambast and decry both the abuses of and the beliefs of particular religions from a position which implies personal values; however, he does this less than Hitchens because this is Hitchens' M.O.)

So there's a neat distinction from observation for you
the more sciencey, empirical etc. the more likely they'll say "Gee Golly I wish there was a God"
the more artsy or philosophical they are, the more likely they'll say "what a bastard God would be if he did exist"