Polytheism is a form of atheism

[TagliatelliMonster]

1. Let the definition of god (for the sake of this thread) be "an omnipotent, onmipresent, and omniscient being".

That would be in line with the Abrahamic god while ignoring plenty of other religions.
Not exactly fair.

2. If multiple gods exist, they can interfere with each other.
3. If one being can interfere with another, then that other being is not onmipotent. For one, if both beings are truly omnipresent - i.e., present throughout all time, and through eternity - then one cannot destroy the other. They necessarily limit each other's abilities.
4. Therefore, if you believe in many gods, you don't believe in gods, but rather something akin to superheroes or other mythical beings.

Let me note that I have no stake in the matter, I'm atheist anyway - but I never understood how people can square belief in many "gods" with the idea that those beings are actually "gods".

Again, sounds like you are trying to take the concept of a "god" from one particular religious philosophy and apply it to all religious philosophies.
There are many religions out there. And most of them don't agree on the attributes / properties / definition of god(s)

 

[Shadow Wolf]

1. Let the definition of god (for the sake of this thread) be "an omnipotent, onmipresent, and omniscient being".

Your entire argument falls flat here. You're established an arbitrary definition to errect a very problematic and faulty conclusion.
This basically posits the Abrahamic god as the only worthy consideration, which is a problem many atheists have when discussing religion. It's an arbitrary definition that has no real reason it has to be that.
Also, if someone believes in a god the individual is a theist. Doesn't matter how many, claiming the person is an atheist is just wrong anyway you look at it. As wrong as Jordan Petterson saying Sam Harris lives his life as though he believes god is real.

 

[vijeno]

That would be in line with the Abrahamic god while ignoring plenty of other religions.

Feel free to present another definition.

You're established an arbitrary definition to errect a very problematic and faulty conclusion.

What do you mean by problematic?

Every definition is arbitrary. That's the point of a definition. Feel free to reject it, or to present another one.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Feel free to present another definition.

Why would I?
I'm just noting that the attributes you listed seem to be coming from one specific type of god - the abrahamic one.
There's plenty more religions out there, many of which have gods that don't fit this description at all... Where the god(s) are NOT "omnipresent" or "omnipotent" or "omniscient"..

So your definitions seems very much geared towards one specific type of religion (abrahamic religion in particular) while it ignores all others.

In context of the point made, it just doesn't seem fair to me.
Kind of begging the question / assuming the conclusion.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Feel free to present another definition.

IMO, there is no single, coherent definition of "god."

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Every definition is arbitrary. That's the point of a definition. Feel free to reject it, or to present another one.

No, they're defined by usage.

And you calling someone a polytheist (i.e. a person who believes in more than one god) tells us that you don't consider them to be an atheist (i.e. someone who doesn't believe in any gods).

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Every definition is arbitrary.

There is a big difference between using a word as it is defined by common usage, aka the dictionary definition, and ascribing it some definition one personally makes up.

 

[paarsurrey]

Polytheism is a form of atheism

Polytheism/Trinity and the Atheism of the West are flip side of the same coin, disillusioned with unreasonable trinity and pious frauds of the Hellenist/Pauline-Christianity "in the name of Jesus-god" they have subscribed to western Atheism (et al), equally or more, if not the most superstitious, please, right?

"Atheism is the rejection of an assertion that a deity exists.[1][2][3][4] In a narrower sense, positive atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities, effectively taking the stance of a positive claim in regards to the existence of any goddess or god.[1][2][5][6] The English term 'atheist' was used at least as early as the sixteenth century and atheistic ideas and their influence have a longer history."

History of atheism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Right?

Regards

 

[IndigoChild5559]

"Atheism is the rejection of an assertion that a deity exists.[1][2][3][4] In a narrower sense, positive atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities, effectively taking the stance of a positive claim in regards to the existence of any goddess or god.[1][2][5][6] The English term 'atheist' was used at least as early as the sixteenth century and atheistic ideas and their influence have a longer history."

History of atheism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Right?

Regards

Yes, you are right. Very good quote. And of course a negative atheist is one who lacks belief in God/gods but who does not assert there is no God/god.

Which is why polytheism, the belief in many gods, by definition is not atheism.