Secondly, if these types of arguments apply to theism, they are equally relevant to beliefs of any kind, including those involving matters of science. We may simply be wrong about the things we purport to know. Moreover, it may be the case that we apprehend knowledge about God—if He exists—gradually, in the same manner we come to know about the physical world. We would be correct to jettison false beliefs about God as our knowledge increases, just as scientists were similarly justified in abandoning belief that the earth is flat. As new evidence renders our beliefs implausible, we either adjust our beliefs or reject the evidence. If the evidence is sufficient to justify a change, we remain intellectually honest only by embracing it, and all its implications.
My third point is this: The fact that many people have—or had—beliefs about God (or gods) that are very different from the beliefs I now hold has little to do with whether or not God exists. I may have come to believe that God exists via a Hallmark card, given to me by my dear grandmother. This fact would not necessarily mean that my belief is untrue. The person who contends that my conviction is invalidated on those grounds is demonstrating what philosophers call the genetic fallacy. Now, with respect to other gods, I would argue that it is impossible for more than one true God to exist, by definition.
Certainly there are mischaracterizations, distortions, and misrepresentations of God; but, this does not mean we should throw out the baby with the bathwater. Just because a person or group has a limited (or grossly distorted) view of God, does not mean that He doesn't exist. Just as false beliefs about science don't invalidate scientific knowledge. Subsequently, there is no need for the theist to be an atheist with respect to those other gods, so called, or to even consider them at all. The same is true with respect to scientific knowledge; there is no need for scientists to reject all those other sciences. They are simply misrepresentations of the one true.
The preceding—or something very similar—is likely to be in my top ten list of worst arguments for atheism. So far, it is number one. In order for the atheist to bring a compelling case against theism, he must show that arguments for God are unsuccessful; arguments such as the cosmological, the teleological, the ontological, and the moral argument; or, he need present compelling evidence for adopting an atheistic worldview. The argument, I believe in one fewer god than you, in its various forms, carries neither burden.
