Now you've got it. The esoteric theists aren't playing the same game as the literalistic, exoteric ones. See Anthony Kronman's explication of Aristotle's First Cause, in Confessions of a Born-Again Pagan. The mysticism of Plato and Aristotle, and of the Neoplatonists was naturalistic.

Christian mystics were pulled in the direction of personifying the mystery because of the Church's totalitarian power. So who can say how much their personifications were based on concessions or confusions? But if you follow through on their negative theology and on their emphasis on the mere metaphorical status of their personifications, their speculations are wholly consistent with atheism. Esoteric "theists" and Neoplatonic, naturalistic mystics tend to add nothing to "the One" that isn't there in the Big Bang singularity.

The main target of my criticisms of religion is exoteric, literalistic theism since that kind of theism crudely and anthropocentrically identifies the Source with a human-like person or mind. I've also written about esoteric theism or mysticism, including the Eastern variety which identifies the Source with consciousness. That, too, conflicts with atheism.