Not discussing this bullshit.

Well, if you see "God" as a concept born of human ignorance, of course it exist, but saying that "god exist" is talking about the deity. so if we are talking about the "concept of god" yes, it is a part of us, that's why we find it everywhere, in any period of time. when we are incapable to understand something or we are desperate to find a solution without any information, our mind will try to create a very strong base to sustain and explain whats going on. its like a desperate move to explain something.
on the second part, I wouldn't compare it with a nation/civilization, since those move around something that's real (groups of people, territory, logical Ideas and laws.

IDK if Im making sense, but my point is that the idea of God is born from ignorance, you don't accept ignorance, we know it exist and that is real, but our work is to eliminate it and try to understand everything that's beneficial to us.

Well, acognitivism is a third option. Acognitivists believe that every existing definition of god is complete nonsense and means nothing, and therefore "is there a god?" is a meaningless question safely ignored.

Just a few examples... Creator of the universe? What if an alien from another universe is the creator..would it still be called god? And who created the creator? An immaterial, disembodied spirit? There are no other examples of such a thing. Disembodied entities are not part of everyday experience and very likely are impossible. A transcendant being? WTF does that even mean? Transcending what? Something bigger than ourselves? That could be a lot of different things. Life force energy? Has about as much meaning as transcendent being.

Labels we create are describing things (tangible and intangible) that are relevant to our everyday existence. Sure we don't REALLY need them, but they make things easier. So yeah I think I understand what you're saying, they don't really exist, but I don't need to accept OR reject a God to go about my day or communicate with other people in a way that they understand what I'm conveying. Labels are for practicality. Believing or not believing in the tooth fairy doesn't affect my every day responsibilities, only other people's false perception of my character.

It's kind of like language. It's not practical to have a conversation with someone who doesn't speak English for me. Their language kind of doesn't exist in my realm. We need a shared language to understand each other. Then where we have two people who speak English, one is a believer and one is a non-believer. We don't need God to convey and understand practical applications of society. Actually, neither do the two people who don't speak the same language.

Hopefully I conveyed my message correctly lol

All gods are myths. Believing in them is delusional.
It's not that complicated.

she's irrelevant so why bother

Nahhhhhhhhhh, gotta sit on the fence and go with what we know until there is some definitive evidence one way or another.

Neither. It is the agnostic way.

If you notice nearly every single fictional account of futuristic societies have done away with both religion and separated states. Either there is a global cooperation and no religion, or the world burned.

Mmmm. Not a lot of god definition going on here. The big trouble is, the word god means so many things to different people. Who said "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic"? I have a lot of trouble doing the math of the Universe and being totally certain that some really advanced technologists can't exist, and they would be "magic" to us. And how would you disprove that the inherent god predilection of humans isn't a survival instinct created by ... gods? All in all, scientists have to admit there is a lot more we can't be certain about .. did I mention dark matter ?

I like the comparison of nationalism and religion, because, effectively, that is what it is. A concept to rally around. And everybody has concepts they live under. I believe we call hating other people's conceptualizations 'prejudice'.

You ask a hard question and my mind says, if there was a God, you could not compare him to anything else, especially a land mass or even a country of people! Apparently, God would not be evolving. If there was a God, then why would IT, have everything evolve, instead of just deciding to make something that was unlike what would happen, if it had evolved over time? I think that I have more questions than answers?

What constitutes "God" or "a god" is subjective to belief and interpretation. It's a personal thing. The way I view "God" is one in which there is no consequence to whether he/she/it exists or not, so my acceptance or rejection of said God isn't pertainent, so the point, for me, is moot.

This does allow me the benefit of not having to be angry about God, and also the luxury of not having to be subordinate to one, either. Works for me. Your milage may vary. Objects in mirror may be closer or further than they appear.

Of course it is something that humanity needs to reject. Religion was simply a way of controlling people and their thoughts. It is nothing more than a bunch of fairy tales that were made up thousands of years ago and it is embarrassing that people can still be made to believe in it.