Some might say that a lack of believing in a thing does not constitute a "belief", but merely the non-belief in the thing being asserted. And those same people might say that the burden of proof is on the advocate of that "belief."
Some would say. Me? I ain't talkin'.
You seem to equate "belief" with "religion" in some classical religion sense. But strictly speaking, that's not quite accurate.
Most folks 'believe' that the cars zooming by the intersection will stop when their red light shows to them. Most folks believe that drunks will not run a red light and T-bone them.
Belief that there is no God is certainly also a belief. That belief also has it's origins and supporting hypotheses etc. etc. etc.
I'll stop there before Qx eggs me on into one of his major treatises.
If people are Qagnostic it would be more rational than being Qatheist (or Qgnostic and Qtheist, as per your request).
Because how can anyone “know” that Q is a larp/fake/whatever, unless that person IS the fake/larping Q?
[Way off topic but the root of the words gnostic and know is jnana (Sanskrit)...]