The kind of theism I write about most is monotheism, especially Christianity and Islam. Christians identify God with the person of Jesus and with two other divine persons. So there you have your personifications. Muslims and Jews don't identify God with any human person, but God for them still comes across as having a distinctive patriarchal and ruthless character, because of the perspective that shines through the scriptures. So there again you have your personifications.
I'm aware there are mystics and philosophers in these religions who depersonalize God. My definition of "theism" forces the choice between the philosopher's abstraction and the folk's dumbed-down, unchallenging, human-like god. Again, it's the esoteric-exoteric distinction. These two conceptions aren't the same and they're not even compatible. If the source of the universe is a force rather than a person, why should anyone think that that's inconsistent with atheism? Theology would give way to metaphysics or to physics. If the source is somehow alive and personal, why reduce that person to a lofty philosophical abstraction? Wouldn't the philosophical reductions be obfuscatory?
No, it's better to appreciate the proto-naturalistic tendencies in these religions and in the conflict between the intellectual elites and the hoi palloi. The more you think about God, the less satisfied you are with the party lines that are fit for unreflective masses. The masses want a personal God to comfort them, but reason and religious experience aren't bound by that infantile preoccupation.
See the article below for more on this contrast between the philosopher's and the folk's Gods.
