Are atheism, agnosticism and theism discrete? Are they complete?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

Are there people who are neither atheists, agnostics or theists?

Is it possible to be more than one of them?

If the answer to either of the above is "yes", how would you extend/tighten/modify the classification so that everyone comes into precisely one category?


FWIW, my view is that everyone is at least one of them, but that it's possible to be both an agnostic and a theist or atheist. Atheism and theism are statements about what you believe - they're not claims to certain knowledge - where as agnosticism is a statement about what you know: if you believe that it is or is not the case that a God exists, but you don't claim to be able to prove it or to be certain, then you're both an (a)theist and an agnostic.

I think that "strong atheism" (believing that it's possible to prove that no god exists), agnosticism and "strong theism" is a complete and discrete classification, but a lesss useful one because it's theoretically impossible to prove that no God exists (vide. e.g. Descarte's invisible demon) and while a universe in which the existence of a God was provable is conceivable this isn't it - atheism is consistent with all so-far-observed evidence.

[sui generis]

1. who cares?

Why the categorization? Isn't "not knowing" a process of discovery, of either reinforcing your hypotheses or dismissing them? How then wouldn't a fixed completely "complete" philosophy be different from faith?

Why split the hair that many ways? It sounds more like question a sectarian of faith might propose.

I'm a pluralist. I don't at all believe in god, and yet I believe that faith is a choice, and I choose to believe in all kinds of really cool things, including some animism when it suits me.

Yet I am rabidly atheistic (well rabidly meaning, I entirely reject the practice of faith in the laws that govern my personal life, with extreme prejudice). I don't care what people believe, I just don't want their beliefs, as silly and formulated from choice as mine are, to be the basis for rational law, or even any form rational science.

[cosmik debris]

2. Could Be.

If that's the way you define it. And you won't find a shortage of definitions around here!

[Kare]

3. I don't think you can be two of those things

Atheists simply do not believe in god. There is no way to prove that god does not exist, you cannot prove a negative. Atheists believe that it can't be proven that there is a god and so choose not to believe in god. I don't think that there are degrees of atheism. You either are an atheist or you aren't.

Agnostics don't think that you can prove that there is a god, and believe that you can't prove that there isn't a god. From what I understand they just don't know what to believe because they see no proof for either side.

And of course theists believe that the bible is proof that there is a god. I suppose you could argue that there are degrees of theism depending on how strong some ones faith is, but I think that that would be something that would be hard to measure or compare.

[charles22]

4. On Agnosticism:

Since theism is a human invention, the claim of "not knowing" seems to abdicate responsibility for making one's own mind clear.

[Az]

5. There is a certain amount of social confusion created due to these words

Let us try to remove some of that confusion by working out exactly what the words mean.

Theist. This one would be the least contentious of the words. A theist simply put is a person that believes in god or gods. It is a simple label. It does not tell us if they are part of a religion or not. Merely that they happen to believe to some degree that there is a god or gods out there somewhere.

Atheist. Now we step up a bit of the confusion. Some would insist that an atheist is a person that declares there are no gods. While a person that did such a thing would indeed be an atheist the word is not actually that specific. Lets look at the etymology of the word. It is derrived from the word theist obviously. But with the prefix 'a' meaning 'without' or 'not' we see that the word simply means someone that is not a theist or someone that is without theistic beliefs. In other words an atheist is simply someone that does not believe in god or gods. Like theist this does not tell us if they are part of a religion or not. Merely that they lack a belief in god or gods.

In order to deal with agnostic we have to introduce another word. Gnostic. Some people are familiar with a religious sect known as the Gnostics. But the word has a meaning independent of them. It comes from the ancient Greek word gnosis which means 'to know'. Thus a gnostic is someone that has knowledge of a matter. This is not some wishywashy sort of knolwedge of something as in they had heard about it. This is direct absolute experential knowledge of a subject. So a gnostic in regards to theism/atheism is someone that believes they have absolute knowledge of the matter. That is they know god(s) exist/do not exist.

Agnostic. Like atheist it is derrived from the word gnostic by afixing the prefix 'a'. Aldous Huxley coined the word to clarify is absense of knowledge as to whether god(s) existed or not. Simply put an agnostic is someone that does not claim to know whether god(s) exist or not.

There is an important distinction here. Theism/Atheism refer to belief while Gnostic/Agnostic refer to knowledge. Belief and Knowledge are not mutually exclusive. You can believe a thing without absolutely knowing it and vice versa.

If you ask a person if they believe in god(s) and they tell you they are an agnostic they have not really answered the question you asked. They may think they have but they have shifted the question to whether or not they know god exists. A slightly different question.

Thus a person can be both Theist/Atheist and Gnostic/Agnostic in various combinations. Examples:

Theist/Gnostic: A person that believes there to be god(s) and is convinced they have had direct experience (ie knowledge) of them.

Theist/Agnostic: A person that believes in god(s) but has not had direct experience of them or is not absolutely convinced of it.

Atheist/Gnostic: A person that does not believe in god(s) and is convinced they have had direct experience of this absense of god(s) or has no doubt of this absense.

Theist/Agnostic: A person that does not believe in god(s) but does not assume they have absolute knowledge of the matter.

Gnostic comes up less often in conversations because there are few atheists that claim to have absolute knowledge of the universe and within the faith based community admitting to lack of faith is considered a taboo. Thus gnosticism gets little airplay on either side simply because atheists that claim it run afoul of logic problems while theists that make mention of their doubt are often shunned.

So in our society the three that get the most attention are theism, agnosticism, and atheism. And because of social pressures the three words have become seperated from their actual definitions somewhat. Those who actively believe in god(s) tend to readily selfidentify as theist. But those who do not believe in god(s) are sometimes reluctant to associate with the term atheist due to its reputation of being an actively declared rejection of god. The thing is that theism and atheism are binary words. You can't not be one and you can't be both. You are either theist or atheist. By definition if you don't believe in god(s) then you are an atheist. That is the definition of atheist. Not a theist. Now you may not be absolutely certain about your beliefs. But that just makes you an agnostic atheist and honest with yourself.

See part of the problem comes from Christianity and its notions of salvation. Somewhere along the line they decided that salvation was not achieved soley by Jesus' sacrifice. In addition to his sacrifice you had to believe in him. That is you had to accept his sacrifice in order to benefit from it (the Universalists rejected this notion claiming that his sacrifice cleansed everyone). That is you had to believe in God and Jesus in order to be saved.

You also have to further understand their concept of sin. Sin is not simply doing bad things. It is a deliberate choice to turn away from God. So in their eyes a person that states they do not believe in God has made a choice not to believe in God. This is the only way they can reconcile their doctrine with the existance of atheists. That is atheists have to be people who have decided to turn their backs on God. Unfortunately thats not how it works.

An atheist does not choose to not believe in god(s). We do not choose what we believe. Here is a thought experiment. Choose to believe that you can walk through walls. Now go walk through a wall. Bet you braced yourself just before you hit the wall. Its because you can't choose to believe such things. The things we believe are things we come to realize we accept as true. And this is not a factor of choice. Choice comes into play when we decide what actions we are going to take. These choices are informed and guided by our beliefs.

But this causes a problem for the Christians. Their god is supposed to be all merciful and even sent his son to sacrifice himself. So if an atheist is innocent of choosing to turn away from God and simply honestly does not believe in god(s) then they have a major doctrinal problem in their belief system. The upshot is they typically will not accept the notion that an atheist simply does not believe in god(s) and instead will insist that we have chosen to reject God. This is why the definitions in most dictionaries reflect this particular position. In a society dominated by Christians the dictionaries are going to reflect their understanding of the word.

I am an atheist. I lack a belief in god(s). I am an agnostic. I do not claim to have absolute knowledge of whether there is a god(s) or not. I do have absolute confidence that there are not certain gods as I have found sufficient evidence to rule them out. But I am also aware of a multitude of claims for other gods that are not as readily dismissed. But at the same time their claims are not sufficiently evidenced to demand my acceptance. Thus while in many cases I would be considered a strong atheist regarding certain claims I cannot make a blanket statement of being a gnostic or strong atheist simply because I am aware of the nearly infinite number of possible claims for god(s).

[madmom]

6. my stock reply, I'm willing to believe when REAL proof exists.

[Az]

7. Careful with that word

Proof is a problematic word. It really doesn't belong in discussions of reality or science and such. Proof is only really possible in abstract constructs such as math. See proof is an absolute sort of word. In something created such as math we can say we have proof because we invented the rules. As such we can be absolutely certain of an outcome because we can apply the rules and see where it goes. In reality its a bit more messy. We can come to understand the rules in operation a bit. But we do not have absolute understanding of the rules. This is built into the scientific method. Its why we always leave the books open and continue testing even the most accepted theories we have.

It would be better to say you are willing to believe when real EVIDENCE exists. That is the way of reality. Leave the proof to math and brewing.

[madmom]

12. LOL.. I bow to you oh great one, thanx for the clarification.

:toast:

[Finder]

8. I think they are three different groups...

although it has become fashionable to place sub-labels lately.lol

Agnostic means without knowledge. Most fit into this category whether through apathy or because of evidence lacking to prove either way.

Atheist means without theology.

Theist means one who follows a theology.

The whole strong/weak or explicit/implicit atheism thing only confuses others I think.

weak or implicit atheists should just use the term Deist.

[charles22]

9. Most what fit in that category "agnostic"?

[Finder]

27. Most people. n/t

[charles22]

28. Most people in the world are agnostic? No.

[Finder]

30. I do not think they label themselves that by any means...

nor do I think all babies baptized are actually catholic/christian.

[charles22]

31. You are asserting that most people in world are agnostic?

Care to fill that in with information or evidence?

[Az]

10. Um wuzahuh?

Weak or implicit atheists should just use the term Deist? How does that make sense? Deists believe in a god. Weak atheists don't believe in gods. Kind of the opposite.

[charles22]

11. Are there any deists around?

I thought the term meant a god who creates or sustains the world, but has no personality, thus no human relation.

[Az]

13. I think the current term you are going for

Is Scientific Pantheist. This is the position that everything is God or Divine. It does not imply this divinity has awareness. Just that the entirety of the universe is worthy of praise and worship. You will find that many (if not most) weak atheists will balk at the idea of worshipping anything. Even something as nonthreatening as that.

Deists do still exist.

[charles22]

14. I think I defined "deist" accurately....

but frankly, don't care.

[Az]

15. It still doesn't apply though

A weak atheist doesn't believe even in a nonpersonal god.

[charles22]

16. I was talking about deism.

And my definition is correct.

[Az]

17. Not disputing your definition of Deism

The only issue I raised was whether it was appropriate to associate atheists with it or not. Be they weak or otherwise. If your goal was to eliminate confusion I would suggest that calling an atheist a deist would in fact add to the confusion.

[Finder]

29. I agree...

Atheists and deists do not worship anything. Pantheism seems to be more a spiritual movement than a religious(doctrinal)one per se...

[Finder]

26. Deists do not believe in a theologically defined god...

and certainly do not worship one. They do not believe in any entity which interferes with the laws of nature or humans on a personal level.

They do not believe in the supernatural or miracles or revealed religion of any stripe.

[Az]

32. Ok, not certain where you are getting your information

The defining characteristics of Deism is a belief in a singular god and a rejection of religious organizations. The word Deism comes directly from the word god or deus. Atheists of any stripe cannot be Deists. I understand your rejection of labels but a Deist Atheist would be the same as saying a married bachelor. They violate the rules of the abstract construct of our language. And unless you wish to simply jetison the language... I am afraid you will have to put up with a few labels.

[Finder]

33. Let me be clear...

As an atheist I reject all so-called revealed religions and movements that require doctrinal adherence or rituals and the gods of said systems.

I do not reject a Creator nor do I believe in it.

Since the 90s many IDers have hijacked the arguments of the deists to promote their "theory" and skew the words of Einstein, Sagan and others to make their so-called theory seem legitimate.

Deism is similar to Stoicism.

[Az]

34. Did anyone read my initial post in this thread?

I maintain that you do not have to reject god to be an atheist. Thats not what the word means. That is the definition the ancient Christians attempted to place on us in order to ease their conscience.

Someone that does not have an active believe in god or gods is an atheist. Thats it. Nothing more is required to gain access to the atheist treehouse. The definition of the word at its most basic is simply someone that is not a theist. Thats what the prefix 'a' means. Not or Without. If you are without a belief in god or gods then you are on team atheist. Period.

As to Einstein I think you may be falling into the IDers trap a bit. Albert was quite explicit in denying the concept of a person god. And personal god is part and parcel of Deism. The confusion comes from an attempt to make a diplomatic statement in response to a Rabbi's question as to whether he believed in God or not. Al's wife advised him to be diplomatic in his response so he made his famous Spinoza's God comment which is more in line with Pantheism than Deism. One year prior to his death he found it necissary to refute the rumors that were going around concerning his beliefs in gods and he quite clearly said he believes in no personal god.

A deist specifically believes in a god. They reject organized religion and all its trappings. But they are still quite clearly a theist.

[kiahzero]

35. Deists seem to disagree

"(A) personal god" is not "part and parcel of Deism."

[Az]

37. I will support my statement

I believe in one God, and no more; and I hope for happiness beyond this life. - Thomas Paine(Deist)

From Websters: "One who believes in the existence of a God or supreme being, but denies revealed religion, basing his belief on the light of nature and reason."

From the book Joy of Sects: "Deists: Those who believe in God, or at least a divine principle, but follow few if any of the other tenets and practices of Christianity (compare with Theists, who believe in a personal God). Developed in the 17th and 18th centuries, Deism envisions a kind of clock-maker God who set the universe in motion but then let it run on its own, calling into question the Jewish and Christian notion of God's intervention in history. A number of prominent early Americans, including Ben Franklin, were Deists, along with French Enlightenment figures Voltaire and Rousseau. "

Here is a description given by Quakers who were quite familiar with Deism: Deism, the "doctrine that God is quite other than the cosmos and entirely transcends it.” Having created it as a closed system, he remains aloof from its operations and lets it go its own way" (160). This is God the creator, the "father." People who adhere to this theology tend to stress rational thought and science as a way of discovering truth; they tend to also place great emphasis on classic religious texts. Orthodox Quakerism is more sympathetic to Deism. For deists "the light was the inherent rational capacity of the mind."

Now I suspect we may find ourself embroiled in a semantic argument here. Perhaps if we step back and reexamine the issue we can gain some insight. It is my contention that weak atheists are by definition not deists. For the simple reason that weak atheists still do not believe in gods. The weak appelation is only relevant to the nature of their argument. It has nothing to do with their commitment to their position.

Conversely I maintain that Deists believe in a god. They may not have a personal relationship with it but they believe a sentient entity created the universe. What he/she/it is up to now is beyond their claims. But their belief in a god places them clearly in the theist category which naturally seperates them from the atheists.

[kiahzero]

38. Yes, Deists are theists.

They just don't generally believe in a personal God.

[Az]

39. Addendum

The do not believe they have a relationship with a personal god. They do believe god is an entity. A person. They do not believe it is a force of nature. They believe it is an entity that created nature.

[kiahzero]

40. Perhaps this is more semantic nitpickery

However, Deists generally hold that God is unknowable and beyond human description... "Belief that the nature of God is abstract and generally incomprehensible which puts it beyond definition for humanity at this time. Furthermore, human language is limited and inadequate to define God; however, man can use Reason to theorize and speculate on what this possible nature is."

From http://www.moderndeism.com/html/deism_defined.html

[Az]

41. See we are coming closer together

I agree that semantic arguments are some of the ickiest arguments around. But they really are necissary sometimes.

A deist will not attempt to define god for others. But part of what they believe of god is that it is a person. They will not impose this on others. But it is the position they maintain. They share atheists rejection of organized religion and are typically on good terms with atheists. But the entire point of this thread is ironing out specific semantic issues. Namely the status of Theists, Atheists, and Agnostics.

We are in agreement that Deists are theists.

The question seems to be based on this branch of the thread whether or not weak atheists are deists or not. I suspect the OP of this branch misunderstands the nature of the weakness in the weak atheist's position. Lets spell it out just to clear any misunderstandings.

A weak atheist does not believe in gods. But they do not insist that there are no gods. They may claim certain gods cannot exist. But they are aware of the open ended nature of the claims for god and realize they cannot make a blanket statement refuting all gods particularly when they have not heard all claims for god. This does not mean they are in any way theists. They have no beliefs in gods. They just don't state there position in the positive or strong stance that there is no god.

For the record I am a weak atheist. Or as I phrase it an agnostic atheist. I am quite certain of some specific gods not existing. But I cannot logically state that no gods exist because I do not have absolute knowledge. Thus I must place myself in the agnostic or weak column.

[Finder]

46. I agree, semantics suck.lol I do not see deists as theists...

though. Deists belong in the freethinking camp with most agnostics and the atheists. Theists are required to have faith where deists rely on reason.

I don't think the semantic issue will ever be solved since we(humans) constantly add the sub-labels.(to others as well as ourselves)

I do think modern deism is evolving into an organized religion of sorts(which is why I changed my label to atheist)because of the recent conflicts around the world and the "culture war" here in the US.

Ironically Dawkins and Harris and others who are seen as intimidating to theists and atheists(some)alike will be the fuel for this new "religion", IMO.

[Finder]

51. The idea of the creator being an entity or person would seem to...

contradict everything written by deists to date.

[Az]

52. There we would seem to differ

The deist texts I have read seem to quite clearly indicate a belief in a god/being creating the universe. A being outside of the universe. What he/she/it did after that is open for debate amongst deists. But that does seem to be a key trait of them that they do beleive in a God/Entity. A belief in a nonentity initiating the universe moves into Pantheist or Stoic territory.

[jobycom]

18. Meh. Labels are the bane of all human growth.

I am an atheist. I don't believe in God. I am also agnostic, in that I recognize that my beliefs may not be right, even though I believe they are. I am also a theist, in that I believe that there is something that gives order to things, and that order means it is better to follow certain rules and live a certain way, or else things will get screwed up. I believe God is a metaphor for that order and those rules, but I in no way believe that order exists outside of us, or outside of our actions. The order is simply the way the world works. But there's not a hell of a lot of difference between seeing God as a metaphor and seeing God as a real being--especially when you consider that a Creator god had to exist before the creation of the Universe, which means that this God had to exist before existence itself. Meaning, any question about whether or not God truly "exists" starts from a flawed premise--we can't even understand the terms under which such a god would exist.

In short, I'm saying that anyone who has clear-cut answers to such questions doesn't ask the right questions.

[charles22]

19. On "agnostic".

are you agnostic, in a general way, about all of your knowledge? Agnostic as an epistemological principle?

[jobycom]

20. Not really--but good question.

I have a healthy dose of skepticism about many things that others consider "certain." Probably has to do with all of my historical studies, and having a general epistemological awareness beyond what most people would consider healthy. I think in general the more specific something is, the less I trust it, even though I might not openly doubt it. But I don't "doubt" everything to the point where my doubt becomes a metaphysical view.

I do think of all human knowledge as coming from human perception more than from reality, so I often see that more than one interpretation can provide answers, if that makes any sense. As a random example: We all know that Copernicus moved the Earth from the center of the model to the third rock around a center sun, and we all bemusedly wonder why it took so long to discover such an obvious truism. But Copernicus's system was no more correct than the old view--it was simply a model that allowed for an easier mathematical model. Picture a solar system model with all the planets revolving around the sun. Then grab it by the Earth and pick it up. The whole thing then revolves around the Earth. It's just less orderly, and therefore less mathematically workable. At first it was even less accurate, as scholars had to work out the new formulas. The entire galaxy is hurtling through the Universe, anyway, so in reality there is no center point--it's all perception.

Not a good epistemological example. Maybe I should have compared eastern and western ideas of medicine (cells versus humors), but I don't know as much about that. :)

On the other hand, I don't doubt that there is a reality that would continue to exist if we all disappeared. I just think we only capture a part of it with our awareness, even when we think we have the whole answer. Sometimes our answers are not just incomplete, but are often more a question of perspective than we admit, and answers we think are completely contradictory can both be true--made oppositional only by our perceptions, not by reality. Quantum physics seems a good example of this.

Is that what you were asking? Or am I rambling for nothing? :)

[charles22]

21. Well, not rambling...

Agnosticism about God seems self-deluding. Or more properly, it is a postition of not yet knowing--but presumes it cannot be known. Since (for the sake of simplicity here) "God" is a social construct, meaning, we learn what and how to talk about God, all the information is there for us. Agnostics cannot claim knowledge is uncertain, by their own definition of not-knowing.

Second Point: If one is agnostic as a general epistemological principle-scepticism-then I might understand more, but agnostic only on matters of God, seems misapplied.

[jobycom]

22. Not sure I follow that...

Sounds like you are saying that agnostics have all the information they need to make up their minds about God because God is just a social construct, or maybe you are saying that the social construct that describes God is complete enough that someone should be able to make up their mind from it. So if they haven't made up their minds yet, it is not because of God's complexity, but because they either haven't gotten all the information yet, or because they are too hesitant to make up their minds.

I don't agree, if that's what you're saying. If that's not what you are saying, I'm having a bad brain day and haven't worked it out yet. :)

[charles22]

23. Think you got me right.

Why I asked you if you are consistently sceptical-agnostic-about all your knowledge in general.

[jobycom]

24. I guess the point I disagree on, then, is

that I think there is no way a human mind can comprehend what a something which created everything we can sense or think about could be. Logically, the question of whether God exists doesn't even make sense, if we are talking about a creator god who created the very minds we have to work with. Existence outside of the Universe would have to be in some format beyond our ability to grasp--if this god was of the same stuff that our universe is made from, then God wouldn't have created the Universe, so much as built an addition on it (I guess we could argue about whether that type of god exists, but that's not generally the one theists believe in).

To me, the real question wouldn't be whether God exists, but whether such a God can be seen acting upon our universe. That's what most theists seem to be saying they believe in. That's what I don't believe. (For that matter, I don't believe there's a god outside of our universe, either). My agnosticism is only in that I raelize I could be wrong. Maybe that is a basic epistemological assumption, or at least hesitation. I do believe we can know things, but only things that our within our ability to know.

Kind of Wittgensteinien, now that I think about it.

[charles22]

25. Well, you are asserting the existence of God.

You start with God creating the world. So you are not an agnostic.
You say God created your mind--so I don't see how you could describe yourself as an agnostic.

[jobycom]

36. I'm an atheist. I only raised a question a theist would have to answer.

[charles22]

42. Ok...no idea what's happening here then.

[jobycom]

43. hehehe

Now you're the agnostic. :rofl:

[Donald Ian Rankin]

44. I disagree - labels are *responsible* for all human progress and civilisation

The ability to distinguish between things and categorise them in such a way as to indicate relationships and differences between them, and to communicate those differences to one another, is what means that I'm typing on a computer rather than fishing termites out of their nest with a twig.

Labels are wonderful things; generally the best way to discuss something is to introduce more, better-defined labels to it and to apply them accurately.

[Az]

45. I think this notion of labels being bad

comes from some people thinking they have to stick to a particular label. I agree that labels can interfere with personal development. The label applies to what you are not you have to be what people have labeled you. But to dismiss labels for fear of being railroaded by them brings a halt to any meaningful conversation.

[Finder]

47. Labels are not bad but do cause confusion...

when the label is not defined with clarity.

Trying to clarify with the use of sub-labels makes it even more confusing when there is no clear definition of said sub-label.lol

[Az]

48. Keep in mind that in a living language definitions tend to shift

That is in part I suspect the reason for this thread. There is confusion as to what the various positions actually are.

[jobycom]

49. Labels would have had Einstein in trade school

Fortunately he ignored them.

Labels are what people fight over. Labels try to force people into specific groups. You call someone an atheist, they stop trying to find their own spiritual path, and they instead start trying to fit into an atheist shoe.

The only label worth a damn is a person's name. Once above that, you've started limiting.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

50. You've got cause and effect mixed up.

People don't become atheists because they're labelled that way; you label people atheists because that's what they are; if they change then you change the label.

If we didn't have labels then not merely would Einstein never have studied physics (because labels like "physics", "energy", "time", and the like wouldn't have existed), he'd never even have been able to become a patent-office clerk.

What you appear to be objecting to is trying to force people to continue to conform to a label that currently attaches to them, which I agree is a bad thing, but is not a reason to oppose defining and categorising things - it's like opposing owning forks because they can be used to stab people with.

[Zhade]

53. Agnostic atheist, yes - I am one.

Atheist theist is even possible - every believer who doesn't believe in all other gods in addition to their own is atheist with regards to those other gods.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

54. No, that's wrong.

An atheist is someone who doesn't believe in any god, not just someone who doesn't believe in a specific god. You can't be an atheist "with regards to something"; you either are or you aren't.

[Az]

55. That would be a simile

An atheist is not a theist. You would be using the phrase as a simile in order to make a person understand that just as they do not believe in a particular set of gods others do not believe in their particular god. The only time such a simile would be used is when you are drawing a comparison such as that. The person as they are either does or does not believe in gods. Those that do are theists. Those that don't get a little 'a' stuck on their label.