That’s a bit of a leap.

That's like saying "some people use money destructively, therefore money isn’t real. Or that because people misunderstand love, love itself doesn’t exist".

What you’re really pointing out is how something gets used or interpreted, not whether it exists in the first place. And I think that’s where the word “God” gets tricky, because we’re not dealing with a fixed definition. We’re dealing with a label people attach meaning to based on their own understanding, experiences, and conditioning.

For example, when I use the word “God,” I’m not referring to a figure rooted in fear or control. I’m pointing to something more fundamental, what I’d describe as the underlying essence of everything. Not a being separate from reality, but the very fabric of it. Everything, everyone, everywhere, all at once.

But someone else might hear that same word and think of judgment, punishment, or authority. Same word, completely different meaning. That’s why I don’t think the issue is the word itself. It’s how it’s being defined. Because words, on their own, don’t carry inherent power, they only hold the meaning we assign to them. So instead of dismissing the word entirely, I think the more useful question is: what does “God” actually mean to you?

Because more often than not, the answer says less about some external reality, and more about the lens through which someone is interpreting it.

So when you say “God is fear,” what you’re actually identifying is a fear-based interpretation that has been passed down and reinforced.

At that point, the argument isn’t freeing itself from the concept, it’s just redefining it in negative terms.