I accept that this is not a scientific sample and that they rarely appear to be very bright but it's also obvious that they don't believe in any god that resembles the one they purport to believe in as this random sample of Twitter tweets shows.
@Scotsmanmatt is a notorious sophist who seems to pride himself on trying to get away with lies and avoiding answering questions. Here he rather too transparently misrepresents Stephen Hawking whilst simultaneously and ludicrously posing as an expert who understands cosmology better then Hawking does.
The following exchange illustrates a typically dishonest exchange. A Christian who had been trying to use the Kalam Cosmological Argument yet again, despite having had it refuted numerous times in the previous weeks is asked a simple question. He goes straight into avoidance mode and tries to change the subject, showing he knows full well the weakness and dishonesty of his argument:
The logic in the first cluster appears to be, "If I shout abuse and obscenities that will teach Atheists a lesson and then they'll believe in Allah and start doing what I tell them. Of course I don't need to behave decently or in a civilised manner because I know there isn't really a god watching me who will punish me for my wrong-doings, but it's important for people to think there is or they won't do what I say". The intent is clearly to use a god as a weapon.
It's a similar psychology behind Pascal's Gambit (or Wager as it's more often known). Pascal's Gambit argues that there is nothing to be lost by believing in God and everything to gain if it turns out to be true, so you might as well avoid the risk and believe.
The intellectual dishonesty of this flagrant denial of reason, and the crass stupidity of trying to fool a supposedly omniscient god by a pretence of belief where there is none, shows those who advocate it to others can't possibly themselves believe in a god of truth and honesty who would, if he existed, value personal integrity above all else. They see no risk at all in urging belief in a god who would need to be stupid and/or appreciate intellectual dishonesty for the gambit to succeed.
Clearly, they don't believe in the god they want you to believe in. They may fool themselves that they believe in it but their actions say otherwise. Okay, I'll grant that some of our Twitter apologists have themselves been fooled by these tactics and lack the wit to to realise they've been duped, but the fact remains that their behaviour is nothing like it should be if they really believe what they claim, as these tweets show.
A couple of other ploys employed by apologists for religion, in addition to the common tactics of lies and deception, are threats and condescension.
Threats are usually threats about what their god will do to you if you don't believe in it, like a playground bully who threatens you with his big brother or his dad, if you don't give him your dinner money. The god is presented, apparently with no concern at all for what it might think, as a nasty vindictive little bully, exactly like the person trying to do the bullying in fact.
Condescension, which is an almost universal feature of religious apologists, usually takes the form of telling you you have no morals and don't know right from wrong if you don't subscribe to their particular brand of superstitions. There is no worry about what this god might think of it being blatantly used to put other people down and to elevate oneself above others in order to feel superior.
In both these cases the god they are trying to foist on you is merely a convenience - a concept to be used against others and to try to control other people. There is no concern about what it might think because it doesn't exist. It's important for the control to work for other people to believe in it, however, so the end fully justifies the means.
The example by 'Matthew Bell' aka @Scotsmanmatt is an example of a Christian trying to get away with three lies simultaneously: first, there is the lie about Hawking's actual argument, either intentionally or through ignorance (where the lie is the pretence of knowledge), secondly the smugly self-satisfied dishonest pretence that he knows better than Stephen Hawking, from his position of ignorance and thirdly that somehow his religion offers a rational explanation - which involves magic.
Matthew quite clearly doesn't believe a god of truth and honesty is watching him. His objective here is to use his pretence of religiosity to justify his pretence of intellectual superiority and unsurpassed scientific prowess which can dismiss the likes of Stephen Hawking with the wave of a hand.
The last example is typical again. This Creationist Christian specialises in assertion then avoidance when questioned. Despite having had his favourite argument, the Kalam Cosmological Argument, refuted numerous times, he trots it out once again, presumably hoping no one will be around to refute it this time. Then, when asked a fundamental question which explores the basic premise of the argument, he demonstrates that he knows it's flawed by immediately going into evasion and avoidance mode, and tries to change the subject. There is no attempt to engage in debate or to support his argument.
Once again, there is no recognition of a god who values intellectual honesty and truth watching here. There is only an attempt to pose as an expert and to show off skill at sophistry and avoidance - something which is clearly rehearsed for the occasion.
In fairless, I should point out that these three are just a more-or-less random sample of countless others who swarm the social media daily. They just happened to be around.
They believe not in gods but in believing in gods - for other people, that is.