"Religious people tend to be smarter"

[bennyboy]

Once again this must be trotted out to debunk another faither's misunderstanding of theism/atheism gnosticism/agnosticism:

I'm not a faither, but I don't see things this way.  It goes against the historical usage of the world, and ignores the contexts under which people talk about their ideas.  If you are really just talking about people lacking a belief, then my beagle is an agnostic atheist.  Presumably, there are some hidden criteria here: for example, that one has the capacity to hold a belief, but doesn't.  But this is a slippery slope, since in order to have the capacity to believe in something, it must be well defined, and there are limitless possible definitions of deity/theity; suddenly, the ignostic position starts to rear its head-- but that's really just a pure agnostic with a specific reason attached to it.

Also important is the context in which the words are used.  It rarely happens that anyone claims to lack a belief unless someone has first presented them with that belief, and I think 99% of the time, a person in that situation is more likely to believe that said God idea DOESN'T exist, i.e. to be anti-theist.

I'm agnostic, not agnostic atheist.  That's because my answer to the God question varies not with my world view, but with the semantics of the question.