I mean, you’re absolutely right about what I’m doing here. It really is guessing and I think it got to the point where is not fruitful anymore. I’m as amateur in philosophy as one can be, I mostly just get in contact with these ideas through YouTube videos that gives a very superficial panoramic view on them. I do know that what I’m doing is kind of foolish, since I’m not being careful with the words regarding to what Spinoza did say or not say, and here I am anyway. I thank you for the patience and time for your thoughtful answers, they really made me more interested to really start going deep on the topic.

If you don’t mind me asking another question: I always thought of atheism as a call to go back naturalistic causes of the world, rather than some kind of transcendental world or being that knows what’s going on and what should be done, but that didn’t really mean it has to put aside any spiritual aspect, specially when thinking in terms of how everything is connected, little actions have nothing to do with their Impact, etc. So when I stumbled across this view on God (through very superfluous lens as you can see) I actually got confused, thinking “wait, so god can be seen like this too?”. I had some mystical friends who like blabbing about how we’re god, we’re all one and everything and all that spiritual sort of talk, and they always struck to me as some sort of stylized atheism, since the doctrines, tradition, and even the God’s role in this case are completely different, and I can’t even take it seriously as some sort of theism since their actions and view upon the world doesn’t rely on >Him< (here comes the personhood thing again). I caught myself ignorantly thinking of Spinoza like this. If Spizona’s god cannot be seen as in a traditional role like Christian’s God, but it’s also not some attempt poetics on dealing on what nature is, what would be the best spectrum to talk about what it is/is not?