Yes. That is exactly how I view God. And whether they realize it or not... that is the God that believers all around the world have dressed up in local superstitions.
( IMHO )

What agnostics are wondering about doesn't bother me much. What does bother me is others who write to tell me what I think or what I must think.

"unknown or unknowable" and putative? hmm

Spinoza rejected the christian notion of a “personal” god, and worked his way towards a sort of philosophical pantheism. At this level, gods are returned to their primary function as metaphors. I don’t have to “believe” in metaphors, but can feel empowered to use them when I choose.

Spinozists have no dogma or central authority, you are sort of expected to figure it out. Christians would rightfully consider me an atheist because their version of god is not compatible with my belief. Calling it Tao or Om rather than god would probably be more familiar. To me "god" is a frame of reference that takes the universe as a whole rather than a sum of it's parts. Just as I have a personal identity, there is my body, my mind etc that encompasses the whole but is also is the singular identity, god is the context of the whole. There is nothing to prove or disprove.

No.

As an agnostic I have no knowledge any gods exist. As an atheist I believe in zero gods.

Here we are, trying to figure out God, Existence, Reality in a philosophical way while physicists are trying the same by way of scientific calculations as they inch their way through the universe as far as they are able. One thing is certain, for us there is no certainty. Even the scientists are constantly altering their conclusions. I love living in "I don't know." When you are open a lot of fascinating things fall in.

I consider myself an atheist mainly because I do not believe in any deity. The rest of it is just woo and I don't need it.

So it had me curious and I searched and found website [plato.stanford.edu]

After looking thru just a little of the information I thought I had better write the editors at Stanford.

Greetings,

Copied below is parts from your website. Your website is saying that modern Judeo-Christian conception is not biblical BUT Spinoza's God is a paraphrase, rephrase or plagerzing of biblical text.

So to say, Spinoza's God is more inline with biblical text than modern Judeo-Christian conception.

I was reading through your website [plato.stanford.edu]

From your section 2.1 God or Nature:

According to the traditional Judeo-Christian conception of divinity, God is a transcendent creator, a being who causes a world distinct from himself to come into being by creating it out of nothing.

By contrast, Spinoza’s God is the cause of all things because all things follow causally and necessarily from the divine nature.

Biblically, it is written,

Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. Genesis 1:2

one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all. Ephesians 4:6

"For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together." Colossians 1:16-17

From Genesis it clearly indicates "ruach" elohim hovering over the "waters" .

What ever "waters" is, not for sure, but it is not indicating created from nothing.

Why the desperate need to attach the label of god to a simple concept, thereby clouding the issue with a word imbued with so many different and confusing interpretations. Strikes me as a leap a faith based on some sort of speculative masturbation.

I have not investigated Spinoza's god. But, I read something that Einstein believed in Spinoza's god.