More Agnostic or Atheist

Agnosticism, by its very conceptual status as a statement of uncertainty, implies there is a reasonable probability of either position - atheism or theism - being true. That probability doesn't have to be 50/50, it just needs to be enough to provide each position with credibility. No reasonable probability of theism's accuracy exists. That is to say, no arguments or evidence provide a compelling enough case to make theism a viable option. More than the mere fact of possibility is required to leave one undecided. Therefore agnosticism is an inappropriate position to hold.

I agree with Lovecraft's take on the situation:

"In theory I am an agnostic, but pending the appearance of rational evidence I must be classed, practically and provisionally, as an atheist. The chance's of theism's truth being to my mind so microscopically small, I would be a pedant and a hypocrite to call myself anything else."

However, I also concur with Penn Jillette's sentiments as expressed in The Portable Atheist (a compendium of work put together by the late Christopher Hitchens). Specifically I am thinking of his statement about being "beyond atheism". Not believing in God is a starting point that allows one to move beyond the metaphysical confines of archaic culture and open up new vistas of thinking, feeling, and life experience.

Atheism is not an identity. It is a position held in the context of a certain debate - an answer to a very specific question. It doesn't even cover every notion of God nor belief in the supernatural. It neither provides nor supplements anything beyond one's stance as to the existence of the theistic God.