I do think we're discussing semantics, but that doesn't mean the discussion is impractical (even though that is usually the case). But my point is, a theist is defined as someone who holds the belief (to some degree of certainty) that God exists. In holding this belief, they are actively making a claim about reality. If he does not exist, then the theist is incorrect to hold this belief. As an analogy, if I have a scientific hypothesis which I believe in and it is proven false via experimentation, I was wrong to hold the belief in this hypothesis. Regarding that people have a feeling that God exists: correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this to say that an individual's intuition leads him/her to lean towards theism? In this case, I would still say that the conclusion which the individual feels is true is either right or wrong (or whatever other truth value it may have), and therefore it is still practical to ponder on whether or not this belief is consistent with reason. If you were to say that you have a feeling that God exists, I don't quite understand how such a statement could be meaningful unless you are making some suggestion as to the nature of reality. One more important distinction to make is between 'science,' and reason in general. I think the two are being conflated here because the former term was used in the OP. Science is one form of rational inquiry, but they are not the same. I hold the position of ethical realism. I don't believe this on a scientific basis, but on the basis of a different form of rational inquiry. So, just because a belief in God has nothing to do with science itself does not mean that it should not be substantiated with some form of evidence, if it is to be a 'belief' in any practical sense. To reiterate: when someone is a theist/desist/polytheist/etc., they are making some claim about reality. This claim should be justified (whether by science or otherwise) in some sense if it can rightly be called a belief.