>>3926248 lb
I think the better question is "what is meant by God?"
Many currently believe in a universal force of creation - a sort of 'fated cosmological will' that presides over all things… As opposed to more personified notions of God stemming from Zeus, Odin, Ra, etc.
This would mean that we, ourselves, are the pantheon, now. Rather than following gods of the forces of nature, we seek out a grand unified force of existentialism. In other words… We are thinking exactly like "they" claim the 7th-dimensional-compressed-light-of-absurd-mysticism-to-make-it-sound-cool did. Except we didn't eat a third of the pantheon to get here. IE - we are on par with the most exhalted angel before his fall.
Which begs the question of following versus worshipping. Those familiar with the teachings of, say, Wicca, certainly recognize a higher existence than "the light-bearer." But you can see how this sort of "primordial savior" can be seen as a bit contentious as his role was simply the delivery of knowledge - which is obviously a double-edged sword.
Regardless of the intent behind the act - there are those who seem to view themselves as a part of Lucifer and want to re-awaken this ancient existence or make him/her/it whole. Yet that is not how a few close to that manner of theology would interpret those teachings.
Do we seek a god in a book with a name? I caution against such things out of principle. Likewise… I caution the distinction between follow and worship when it comes to saviors of any order and era. Worshipping something that isn't abstract and which exists as part of written account becomes a vector for manipulation. We can already see this with the Catholic Church and their rather odd use of the greek "Ecclesia" to claim themselves as the Church Jesus ordained.