Now I'm confused.
I assert that there is no god. I believe that makes me an atheist by definition. If not, then what label should I use instead?
Atheism is "no god definitely,", you might want to consider agnosticism "dunno / can't prove it / don't care"
I tend to go with the latter, as in logic you can't prove a negative (EG, the world exists, so I can't "disprove" a God created it, and a frequent attempt to "prove" God created it is to point out it's there.... which is something of an impasse, with neither side changing their belief)
While you might go "of course there's no god", the burden of proof is interesting.
Personally, I'm happy to use god as an interchangeable word for nature, the universe, reality, in an informal context (I tend not to go around smashing down the logic of everyone who believes in God unless they are pushing it on me in a problematic way). But when you come to some fella in the sky with intentions, I think that's mankind arrogantly assuming any higher power would be in his image (therefore retroactively explaining why "god created us in his image" - that's us patting ourselves on that back that we're close to god) - on that tangent, there's things like gnosticism, and the idea of an uncaring, or uninvolved, or even unconscious god.
Alan Watts called this God belief - Abrahamic religion - the ceramic model of the universe - EG, everything was manufactured as if out of clay; the opposite being the more zen / tao or Hindu "everything is", "everything be", "things grow" "reality is now", don't concern yourself with god as it doesn't matter. Watts had a nice turn of phrase: As apple trees (grow) apples, the universe "peoples" - has planets and people.
No belief changes that I still need to eat breakfast