I think you mean Celestials.
While the Eternals cannot die, they don’t wipe out entire worlds or anything like that. Well, unless the new movie says Thanos was one, like in the comics.
Speaking of, they’re certainly initially playing at being Gods, despite what the trailer voiceover says about never interfering:
I stand mostly corrected, although it is clear that Celestials can be killed.
Stranger
If you read the comics, you know that TVA agents are all clones of Mark Gruenwald, a Marvel Comics writer and executive editor tasked with maintaining continuity in the increasingly complex Marvel Universe. Doing so, entailed wrangling multiple alternate universes and timelines into a reasonably coherent framework. As a tribute, the creators of the TVA fashioned all agents in the likeness of Gruenwald. It’s no accident that Owen Wilson was cast in the role of Mobius.
Mark Gruenwald:
ETA: Sorry that was off-topic. I thought I was in the Loki thread. But in a way, the real gods of the Marvel Universe are the artists, writers, and editors who created this stuff. Odin doesn’t have anything on Stan Lee or Jack Kirby.
Knowhere is the severed head of a Celestial, but maybe the Celestial got better 
However, in the MCU, Ego was called a Celestial, and he definitely was killed.
Nooo, it adds to my very small knowledge of the MCU.
I recommend you remedy this by at least watching the first Iron Man movie, and seeing if that piques your continuing interest. The MCU is certainly full of comic book superheroics, but the multiple styles and genres also include comedy, drama, romance, espionage, war, and more, so they may not be as bad as you think.
They’re all on Disney+ (aside from the Spider-Man films) so it’s no cost to you except time.
I have Disney+ and watched a couple of minutes here and there. I watched Civil War and it did nothing for me. The plot holes and the one-on-one massive battles where you know nothing is really going to happen and “gods” figthing alongside a person with a Glock.
The point is to watch them in order so you are invested in the character journeys. Catching out of context glimpses is not giving them a fair assessment, so that’s why I suggested start at the start, like most of us did. But whatever, you can do what you want.
That’s one of my favorite stories.
Marvel Studios actually made a smart decision early on by taking their characters and setting them in films that, while utilizing “superhero” tropes, were actually of a wide array of different genres with very flawed characters and organic interpersonal conflicts. The criticism has often been leavied that the films (at least, the origin stories) follow a well-defined template; and this is absolutely true (If you map out the plot beats in Iron Man, Thor, Ant-Man, and Dr. Strange, they are pretty much exactly the same plot) but they’ve done a good job of giving the characters distinctive motivations and character arcs that extend beyond their individual films.
Iron Man, for instance, is the “Inventor vs. the World” plot more comparable to The Man in the White Suit than a vengeance fantasy or altruistic protector; Captain America: The First Avenger is homage to pulp serials (the naive jingoism of which it mocks in the “Man With A Plan” bond-promoting sequence); and the first Thor film is actually an alien in human society, a la something like Starman. Subsequent films have gone even deeper into genre tropes and implicit references with Ant-Man being a heist film, Captain America: The Winter Soldier a conspiratorial thriller along the lines of The Parallax View or Three Days of The Condor, and Guardians of the Galaxy a space opera adventure.
It also helps that the villains in most of the films are really secondary to the main conflict, primarily existing to instigate internal conflicts between or within the protagonists; in, say, Captain America: The Winter Soldier, the real conflict isn’t Steve Rogers versus Alexander Pierce; it is that Rogers has to come to terms with the fact that his increasingly fragile patriotism has been taken advantage of by people undermining the very institutions he was made to protect, and that are the essence of his motivations. His real conflict is with himself, and of course with the tension between serving a higher purpose (protecting freedom despite personal cost) and fealty to his life-long friend who has been converted into a Hydra super-assassin. The ostensible genre may be ‘superhero’ but the layers of motivations and conflicts are as deep as anything in The Godfather or King Lear, and (in my opinion) at least as compelling.
It is easy to be dismissive of ‘superhero’ movies as being trival and superficial because many of them are, and Marvel has had a few underwhelming films slip through (the lackluster Avengers: Age of Ultron and forgettable Thor: The Dark World rank at the bottom) but they’ve largely done a good job of transcending genre conventions by consciously extending their films into other genres and taking risks on writers and directors who would do something other than make a generic superhero movie. The result is films that, despite the structural similarities noted above, don’t feel like watching the same film made over and over again like so many sequel franchises.
Stranger
I know in the comic books most of Loki’s powers come from his mastery of sorcery(i.e. magic) and have nothing to do with his Frost Giant heritage.
I am not sure if this is so in the movies.
I believe it is. In one of the Thor films (I think it was The Dark World), it’s mentioned that Frigga, his adoptive mother, taught him magic.
Why not the Spider-Man films?
They’re still owned by Sony, not Disney. Marvel co-produces, and after much negotiating has license to use the character in limited ways, but distribution remains with Sony. That may change in the future, if rumours are true.
Sony Pictures Motion Picture Group and Pascal Pictures own the distribution rights for the cinematic depictions of Spider-Man (although Marvel owns the merchandising rights, which are worth far more than the film distribution revenues themselves). Ditto for Universal Studios and standalone Hulk movies, although Marvel still has the rights to use the Hulk character in team-up films (which is the in-joke in Thor: Ragnarok about joining “The Revengers”).
Amy Pascal will never, ever give up the Spider-Man rights that she somehow retained personal rights to, and without her concurrence neither can Sony regardless of how badly their “Sony Pictures Universe of Marvel Characters (SPUMC)“ tanks.
Stranger
Said negotiation was what led to the Tom Holland version of Spider-Man appearing in several Avengers films (and Tony Stark, Happy Hogan, and Pepper Potts appearing in Holland’s Spider-Man films). However, the prior iterations of Spider-Man (played by Tobey Maguire, then Andrew Garfield) were their own thing, and were created prior to that negotiation between Sony and Disney; those films are now considered to be part of the “Sony Pictures Universe of Marvel Characters.”
However (spoiler for the next Spider-Man film):
Alfred Molina and Jamie Foxx are said to be reprising their roles from the earlier Sony films (as Doctor Octopus and Electro, respectively) in the upcoming Spider-Man: No Way Home, and there have been rumors that Maguire and Garfield might appear, possibly as alternate-timeline versions of Spider-Man.
I’d sit this one out cap, these guys come from legend - they are basically gods -
There’s only one god ma’am, and I’m pretty sure he doesn’t dress like that.
@simster: that’s one of my very favorite lines from that film, and it’s perfect Steve Rogers. 
Until Disney buys Sony.