What “back to the real material object” means

If Heidegger was interested more in the world of becoming than in being, and if for him Dasein is human nature and exists in the realm of time, and if he could go further and say that Godhood or Being is also in the realm of true material being, which is evolved to in the material and supermaterial world, then I could affirm Heidegger. But as far as I can see he does not affirm these things.

God or Being in both religion and philosophy has been mistaken for a name or symbol or bliss experience only. This led to the apotheosis of naming when God or Being was given a spiritual-only, non-material name, or idea, or symbol, and not seen as a living or future living material/supermaterial object or objects. This does not mean that God is rejected, it means that the name of Godhood needs to be transformed from a mere spiritual name, idea, or bliss experience, into a living or future material/supermaterial living thing, object, or objects, evolved to in ascending levels within the material world. 

That is what “back to the real material object” means to me. There has been too much airy-fairy game-playing going on among intellectuals, and the real world has not become healthier.