How so? I know of multiple definitions for what a god is, so there is a degree of subjectivity to it, but anyone with a deviant definition tends to clarify it. I've heard enough different descriptions of what a deity is to view it as subject to different people, with certain common trends. For example, nearly every description of deities has them have an immense amount of power far beyond what any human could have.
Pfft, the Christian god is only a "man in the clouds" in paintings. Clearly, a burning bush and a fire tornado are better descriptions
. Jokes aside, I generally don't view deities as bound by a specific physical form. From my perspective, a deity could be anything from a being with what I would call a "quantum existence" that is, if you would think of the universe as a stack of papers, a deity would be drawn on multiple pages while all the items we interact with (as well as ourselves) are all drawn on just 1 of those pages, which the deity is also drawn on, to a being which literally defies physics and can change them at will.
I wouldn't say that the concept of liberty comes from that Roman goddess; I'd say it comes from people, which may or may not be the same people that came up with that goddess. However, when I look up the origin of the concept of liberty, it originated with the ancient Greeks, not the Romans.
Biomedical ethics also aren't practiced "in nature", and I am not sure why you are pointing out that human made concepts aren't applied by every other species on this planet.
Pfft, it's one thing to say that we believe in the atmosphere we breathe and a whole different thing to say that we believe it's a conscious deity named Shu. That is, both atheists and ancient Egyptians would agree that we breathe in something, but we'd disagree on the nature and origin of that something.
I don't view corporate entities as non-living, as they are ultimately groups of people that control various resources. I also take great issue with the idea of treating a business as an individual person, such as allowing the business as a whole to have a religious view.
An impossible position to have altogether? That doesn't make any sense, you're debating with an atheist right now! You'd actually have to believe that, since you are the only thing you can be sure of the existence of, and since you are a theist, that means that all atheists aren't demonstrably real so you can treat atheism itself as non-existent.
Yet, I am being absolutely honest when I say I don't believe in any deities. I have no motivation, no reason whatsoever, to lie about it.
Uh, what? The development of language and writing (information transfer) has nothing to do with demonology, what kind of anthropology education do you have? Psychology as a study is part of why performing exorcisms is on the decline (since so many mental illnesses used to be attributed to demons and curses rather than chemical imbalances and deviant brain structure). I guess if you consider demonology to be such a big part of human society, it's understandable that you'd think it's a big for sociology, but that's the study of human societies as a whole. No matter how big demonology may be in any given society, it will still only be a fraction of what sociology investigates.