That's not my experience at all. The main non-agnostic atheism I've seen has been pretty hard to the "deities don't exist, full stop" side of the spectrum.

Also you don't need to be agnostic or non-agnostic, or even an atheist, to believe that the current religions are bullshit.

Until someone can prove that a deity exists, I don't have any need to go looking for one. Their absence in a world that cries out to them every day speaks volumes about their existence.

You succinctly explained how I feel. I was very religious earlier in life, giving my life and scant monies, raising my family to the same. Now, after evolving my views quite a bit due to firsthand observation and third hand research regarding the absolute bullshit religious pour on real marginalized communities, I'm apatheist (lean agnostic atheist). I legitimately don't care if there is a diety. If there is and they have need of my fealty, fine, but I'm not going to claim adherence nor follow belief to satisfy the whims of mortals claiming to be mouthpieces when a real deity has capacity to reveal themselves.

I'll never again outsource my morality.

That's the problem with relying on our observations only. It biases us to reality.

It’s not rational to believe in free will either, so nothing is rational.

Rationality is defined as choices being able to be made that are both complete (all options under consideration can be understood) and transitive (if I choose A over B, and B over C, then I choose A over C).

Most often people exhibit bounded rationality, as "completeness" is a heavy cognitive burden and transitivity is hard on the margins.

Neither components of rationality require belief, and both recognize that choices (free will) can be made, suggesting more nuance to your argument is needed.