Just that they're neither atheists or theists. I.e. you're not really a theist unless you believe in an anthropomorphic god, just believing in an abstract conception of god isn't enough. And similarly you're not really an atheist unless you wouldn't believe in god even if you saw him, a position which even Richard Dawkins admits is untenable.

> you're not really a theist unless you believe in an anthropomorphic god, just believing in an abstract conception of god isn't enough

This is based on a pretty specific set of jargon that most people probably don't even consider. I have a hard time believing that there's enough evidence either way to say whether more people who claim they're theists are actually deists, but it doesn't serve any purpose to conclude either way. As far as colloquial usage is concerned, there are a lot of people who are honest in their conviction as believers in "god" in some form or another, even if it isn't as specific as you'd like it to be for the purposes of that classification.

> And similarly you're not really an atheist unless you wouldn't believe in god even if you saw him

That's just... I don't even know how to address that. Your first claim was extremely specific and conforms pretty closely to very well defined criteria, but this one drifts much further from the same set of criteria.

> a position which even Richard Dawkins admits is untenable

I wouldn't be surprised. Literally no one would find it tenable. Not even Richard Dawkins, who is wrong about nearly everything he says outside his professional career.