1. Comparing smart theists people of ancient times, and by ancient I mean anything more than 100 years old, to theists of our time is not a valid comparison in my opinion. I would be a theist, and I would have written volumes on subjects such as the number of ferries who can dance in a needle’s hole, if I were living in a society where the punishment for questioning deities was beheading. That kind of punishment would limit the number of known atheists not only because they were afraid to announce their positions, but also because they had much less of a chance to re-evaluate their viewpoint on the matter. In other words, for most people, the choice between being a theist and an atheist was not an option, and it never occurred to them exactly because this was not, and could not, be the topic of discussion in the society.
What is true in our age, however, is the percentage of atheist scientists is rapidly increasing. There are references to statistics in the same book, The God Delusion, to support my claim. Therefore I think, too, that there is a correlation between atheism and knowledge of sciences and the power of analytical and critical thinking, which when put altogether, would constitute what we call smartness or talent.
2. Richard Dawkins agrees that the world may be incomprehensible in principle. Watch this video: http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/richard_dawkins_on_our_queer_universe.html
3. I am a pacifist, as you might know, and I do not believe atheists should declare war on theists. I do not even think atheists should try to intimidate or offend theists, as Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchenes do; but, if I were not, that is, if I believed in fair retaliation, if I believed in an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth, I would say it is only fair if atheists would skin the theists, barbeque their flesh, and make toys out of their bones for children, because that is what they have been doing to their oppositions through out the history. Theists have made lives of billions of people in any religious state that I know of, or have heard of, so miserable and unbearable that no retaliation of religion, I suppose, would be sufficient. You might argue that dictators of history would have made lives miserable with or without religion, but religion has made it immensely easier and more justifiable for them to torture and terror.
4. I think Dawkins’ argument about agnosticism is valid. You do not say you are tooth ferry agnostic, even if you do not deny the existence of tooth ferries. I would say the existence of one single creator for the universe as we know it, is far more improbable than a tooth ferry, and therefore being a God-agnostic makes as much sense as being a tooth ferry agnostic.