rationalskepticism.org

I do believe these are excellent pieces of evidence.

Teuton wrote:"If someone seemingly tells us that God exists, and then goes on to tell us that 'God' denotes the evolutionary-historical process that has brought us into being, and if we ourselves think that this evolutionary-historical process is far from deserving the name he gives it, then we should count him as an atheist. We may report that he says the words 'God exists', but we would be wrong to say that he says that God exists. (Or at least we would be wrong to say it without immediate qualification.) He believes in something that he thinks deserves the name 'God'. But if we are right and he is wrong about what it takes to deserve the name, then he does not believe in anything that would in fact deserve that name, and we would be wrong to say otherwise."

(Lewis, David. "Noneism or Allism." In: David Lewis, Papers in Metaphysics and Epistemology, 152-163. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999. p. 153)

In response to Mr. Lewis, I have been called worse things. Calling me an atheist does not make it so although it does seem to point to evidence that theists and atheists can be quite similar ontologically yet very different in other areas. (Other areas being, behavior and faith.)

"Compare the foolish suggestion that all of us at least agree that God exists, although we disagree about His nature: some say He's a supernatural person, some say He's the cosmos in all its glory, some say He's the triumphal march of history, ... . Given that much disagreement about 'His' nature, there's nothing we all believe in."

(Lewis, David. On the Plurality of Worlds. Oxford: Blackwell, 1986. p. 140)

In a second more comical response to Mr. Lewis, I would say compare the foolish suggestion that all us of least agree that George Bush exists, although we disagree about his nature: some would say hes a stupid-natural person, some says hes loves his cosmos in all their glory, some say hes the triumphal march of history. Just a little humor there.

"In a western context we speak of God. And it is possible to use this familiar term with the stipulation that it points to the ultimate reality without however defining it, and so without prejudging whether that reality is personal or non-personal or even such that this duality does not apply. But in practice the long-established associations of the word as referring to an infinite divine person are generally too strong for this stipulation to be effective. And so we resort to such terms as 'the Ultimate', 'Ultimate Reality', 'Absolute Reality', 'the Real', 'the Transcendent', 'the Divine', 'the Holy', 'the Eternal', 'the Infinite' — with or without capitals."

(Hick, John. The Fifth Dimension: An Exploration of the Spiritual Realm. Oxford: Oneworld, 2004. p. 9)

I fully agree with Hick that, in order to avoid confusion and misunderstanding, the name "God" should only be used in the traditional context of theism qua personalistic psychotheism, i.e. the belief in the existence of at least one deity that is a personal soul or spirit, or a spiritual person, or a spiritual substance, as the philosophers say. (A spiritual substance is a totally immaterial entity with mental attributes, mainly (self-)consciousness, but without any physical attributes.)

Alas, using one of the alternative expressions as suggested by Hick above isn't helpful, because phrases such as "Ultimate Reality" and "the Divine" can be arbitrarily used to refer to anything. Should materialists who believe that "Ultimate Reality"/"the Eternal"/"the Infinite" is an eternal and infinite physical quantum field start calling themselves theists? I really don't think so. (Well, they could call themselves "hylotheists", but that would be very silly.)

Ah the meat portion!
I would first ask if you could post a source for personalistic psychotheism. I could only find http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/psychotheism Where God is spirit or personal "spirit" translated from Latin "spiritus" from Greek "πνεῦμα" meaning breath among other things http://studybible.info/strongs/G4151 Ah, Mr. Hick it seems has similar problems with defining terms! I agree that there exist historical problems with using the word God in this particular way. Centuries of church corruption did exist and color the way people view the word and what the word represents.
http://www.hermes-press.com/DAtruth.htm and another quick and more balanced read http://the-orb.net/non_spec/missteps/ch11.html Hylotheism eh? I like it, seems like a good word and can't be much worse than theophobia.
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/theophobia


Here is a link to a Zen Christian source.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/55058908/handokai