God is Human (and he could not be otherwise)

Atheists who have read the Bible (or parts of it, like me) often say that God's actions are inconsistent (especially when reading the Christian Bible) but what strikes me the most is that whatever theologians say about the folly of anthropomorphizing God, he is a very human figure as portrayed in the Bible. This is especially true if you don't buy that the inconsistencies in his actions are due to greater knowledge. If you treat him as a petty and sometimes foolish character, it makes sense. But this is not an interpretation that works well in a monotheistic framework, at any rate not a conventional one.

However, there is some evidence that early Jews believed in more than one god, and that many didn't even confine their worship to their own tribal god (the god of the Bible). Modern Judaism, of course, doesn't support this view, but I am rather fond of it - I like the drama of a group of quarreling deities, as in the Greek and Roman myths, rather than the comparatively boring idea of a single benevolent creator, or the frightening one of a single strict or even vindictive deity.

But the reason I think that God has to be human (by which I mean that as a character he is humanlike) is that we only know one intelligent species capable of communication - Homo Sapiens. It would be difficult, if not impossible, to imagine an intelligent being that was not humanlike (which is also part of why most science fiction aliens look a lot like us). He has to either be a humanlike character or a non-character.

My Atheist Position

I took this table from this post on Triangulations. I find it interesting to look at the sheer diversity among atheists etc. so I filled it out.

Self-Label(s)	Agnostic Atheist (believes there is no god/are no gods but acknowledges that she cannot prove it)
Past Sect History	Unitarian Universalist
Past Belief History	Life Long Non-believer (Birthright)
Past Orthopraxy History	Church every week as a kid. Christmas and Easter.
Level of Certainty:	Moderate
Openness:	Open, but cautious
Degree of Outreach:	Varies between Affirm, Debater, Active. More on the active side online.
Present Religious Participation:	Often (various kinds of progressive Judaism), rarely (Unitarian Universalist)
Stance toward Categorically Rejecting Religion:	Religion is okay. We should recognize and use its contributions while correcting its excesses and allowing others to believe what they will.
Degree of Enchantment	Enchanted
Mystical Perceptions:	Non-Mystical
Theory of Religion:	I'm not sure how the first religions came to be. I think we have a need for explanations and that religions today serve many roles, such as marking important stages in our lives (birth, coming-of-age, marriage, death) and marking time on a more day-to-day basis into working and non-working time, holy and mundane time (especially religions that have a sabbath or day of rest). They often mark the seasons as well (look at your favorite Christian or Jewish holidays - lots of them draw on pagan celebrations tied to the seasons). They serve as moral arbiters, as well, but I think in most of these respects we could do without them, as long as we had some agreed-upon system for this.
Non-theistic Leanings	Nothing supernatural
Secular Superstitious or Irrational Habits	I knock on wood.
View of Reason	Reason is very important. Humans tend to be irrational.
Faith Items	We'll make it past our current troubles, somehow.