I want to give two instances of when a person can maintain a position wherewhich they (if one is to not make a genuine deontological distinction,) are atheist and a theist.
By atheist in this sense, is the character of an explanandum-explanans relata; this is both towards semantic content and epistemological import. Atheist in this sense simply means one does not recourse to the supernatural in explanation or understanding.
By theist, one takes to be most putative construals; believing in God, or the supernatural, whatever.
Here; I shall point out two kinds of belief mindset which should seem striking, but not inconsistent.
Case 1: being secular and holding religious conviction. This is not really a special case; this is probably the case for most religious people (but am willing to accept otherwise)
Case 2: those who appeal to things professionally and intellectually without recourse to God; but have sincere and deep convictions. I think here of Anscombe’s programme for the revision of ethics
This would go against the lack of subtlety of a view that maintains that all things permeate and relate simply to God. “God did it”, may be an economical answer, but it’s not parsimonious…it’s a cheap knockoff of Ockham’s Razor.