There is a limit to tolerance. That limit is set by science. In particular if one does not look for or accept evidence as proof, it limits your chances of the whole world agreeing on things. That agreement will take many many years to establish, but setting it as a universal aim is a start,

You say,"God is generally defined as being wholly transcendent, anthropomorphic, personally loving and good, with a human centered personality."

I ask, which "general" god are you speaking of?

"...I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things." Isaiah 45:7

...creates evil.

Or what about this "personal Jesus "?

"God then because a useless subterfuge or word salad statement which means virtually nothing to anyone whose still believes."

Nothing like salmagundi.

Yes it is true, that which means everything means nothing.

And in that sort of pantheism, why not just call it 'nature'.

There are several pantheisms. Some of them aren't beliefs at all, but perspectives that people can take or leave as appropriate to a given situation. The art of language - metaphor - personification. What poetry or figure of speech can be "wrong"? It's just a point of view, that doesn't have to be an explanation for anything. Allegory. Art.

So essentially, god is whatever people want him to be? Fine by me.

id agree that Yah is anthropomorphized, but by people, believers, and not the bible
fwiw

pantheism might be said to be inadequate in that a less-than-complete concept is being paid obeisance, in the case of "acceptance of any gods," iow a Mammon or even Molech worshipper would be accepted

(@Willow_Wisp "today's bible study" tantalizingly close, imo )

I thought of myself as a Pantheist right before I learned about Atheists. Strange how you can start out as one thing and end up another all together.