Again, on the point of taking you seriously, consider this example, which was in its moment a change of subject: I agree with you that the current thread pretty much assumes that we're dealing with monotheists. They are the ones who tend to refer to God with the capital 'G' rather than to gods with small 'g'. A God is often be defined to be omnipotent; gods often are not, if for no other reason than they have other gods to contend with. In many of the popular polytheisms, there is often an assumed heirarchy of gods, but it is not usually assumed that all gods are one God. (James R↗) It's actually a useful primer for those who have yet to learn this basic distinction. To the other, its setup is a fallacy; when told his approach to a subject "prejudicially compresses diverse religious beliefs, justifications, and behaviors into a monolithic totem", he changed the word "monolithic" into so "monotheists", in order to carry on with another manner of discussion. Still, even the shit James leaves behind when running away is not so ignorant as you.