Well, there's also that. I don't not believe in any deity.
Regardless though, the term atheism just has so much baggage and drama associated with it that it's much easier for me to say I'm agnostic.
Agnostic is likely the proper term you and most people want to stick with. Not just because of the baggage it comes with but because you have an intellectual burden with it.
Sure, they can call it you lack of belief or whatever nonsense you want, but you cannot be intellectually honest in such a position without justification.
Its like if I told you I had french toast this morning for breakfast. Then you tell me, I don't believe you or I lack belief in your statement. Philosophically, that is committing the fallacy of begging the question until you state why. Like, "I saw you eating a breakfast burrito". Greek philosophers developed the phrase "To deny a truth is to affirm another truth" to weed out the radical skepticism from the intellectual space.
And with any justification, it of course requires you to also demonstrate that your theory of knowledge actually can confirm the truth value of such a premise. This is because epistemology is a complicated matter.
By contrast, calling yourself an agnostic frees you from any burden because you remained uncommitted to the premises or conclusion. Its a much more rational position to hold.
Man.... hockey season needs to hurry up and start....