I agree with you, and I think you've expressed yourself very well, but I don't think your article speaks much to most people who believe in God or the concept of the Divine.

The idea of not believing in the concept of God is very different from not believing in particular gods, especially for modern monotheists.

It's good that you bring up Zeus, because that illustrates my point. People like Christians and Muslims tend to look back at Greek religion and dismiss it as silly myth that didn't even hold together in coherent storytelling. They fail to appreciate that the mythology wasn't the religion. Many people in the ancient world, much like modern Hindus today, had sophisticated belief systems about universal spirituality that their storytelling only illustrated, and was not meant to be taken literally.

Few people in the ancient world would have believed that Zeus was a giant anthropomorphic figure who actually lived on the top of Mount Olympus. Few people believed that the myths about Zeus, many of which were contradictory in detail, literally happened.

In the same sense, many modern Christians don't take Bible storytelling literally, or at least not most of it.

I've been an atheist since I was 16 years old, but I was raised as an Evangelical Christian, and I have some sense how fundamentalist Christians think and how more progressive Christians think.

Your argument is likely to at least make sense to fundamentalist Christians who think of ancient God stories as the point of religion, but they ultimately won't be able to hear you because they're convinced their stories are true. If they stopped believing the literal truth of their stories, they would in their minds stop being Christians.

But I doubt your argument would appeal to Christians with more sophisticated beliefs, who are more or less willing to accept the universality of deity and who aren't much fussed with the literal truth of ancient storytelling.

Ecumenical Christians who believe God manifests as a spiritual sense in humans of different cultures in different ways already reject the viewpoint of their fundamentalist cousins, a viewpoint your argument rather rests on.

Even traditionalist Christians like the famous apologist C.S. Lewis would be unmoved by your arguments, because they don't reflect their actual beliefs. Even a rapid perusal of his famous Narnia series for children would explain why.

I guess in summary, even though I agree with you in many ways, your arguments are based in fundamentalist Christian beliefs that fundamentalist Christians will be unmoved by anyway, and that modern, more progressive Christians don't subscribe to and can't relate to.