Which one is the better reframe of the usual religious question, ignosticism or apatheism?

The wikipedia article states that "Ignosticism is not to be confused with apatheism, a position of apathy toward the existence of God. An apatheist may see the statement "God exists" as insignificant; yet they may also see it as having semantic value, and perhaps being true."

Does this mean ignosticism goes further than apatheism? Or could we say that the true apatheist doesn't even care whether the proposition has semantic value or not?

When Laplace answered "[Sire,] je n'ai pas eu besoin de cette hypoth├Ęse.", was he being an ignostic or an apatheist?

But there's definitely an ignostic angle here:

Well, if I asked people whether they believed in life, they'd never understand what I meant. It's a bad question. It can mean so much that it really means nothing. So I ask them if they believe in God. And if they say they do -- then, I know they don't believe in life. Because, you see, God -- whatever anyone chooses to call God -- is one's highest conception above his own possibility thinks very little of himself and his life. It's a rare gift, you know, to feel reverence for your own life and to want the best, the greatest, the highest possible, here, now, for your very own. To imagine a heaven and then not to dream of it, but to demand it.

– Ayn Rand, We the Living