The argument is that all of these God's have equal evidence for their existence. Its an argument against Pascal's Wager and the the Clockmaker argument that try to argue for one God without addressing the possibility of other gods.
It's extremely stupid because all these religions either have a different concept of what a god is or they can be conflated under the same being on different cultural inclinations.
"God" by itself means nothing. A God is defined by whether or not people form some sort of worship towards them, and even then the archeological evidence on how it was conceived is dubious. If archeological standards will be employed in 2000 years, when they will find my house they will conclude from my devotional statues I worshipped a pantheon with deities such as "Rei Ayanami" and "Ryuko Matoi", I suspect the cult of Isis in ancient Rome was no different, and that the whole Marvel cast of characters will be considered the dominant religion of our century by the next civilization. (In fact, they already have Thor and Loki in there, and that is really no coincidence if you have a surface level knowledge of Jungian's theory of archetype and fiction)
Anyway, without getting into shinto and animism (because they are also beyond my knowledge tbh), gods in northern african and european folklores have pretty much nothing to do with our modern conception of gods. They were just idealized, mithological superhumans, possibly inspired by past heroic figures, which formed the mythological nexus the culture fished from. And that is to the point the greeks were just perfectly fine using them as characters for their cuckold comedy shows where Mercury helped Zeus cuck some guy. They were in a certain sense the purest form of entertainment as well as representation of high ideals, some kind of abstract "influencers" if you will. If they were considered living or "real" in some sense (I guess the correct term would be
ontologically immanent or some philosophical quibble like that), they were more similar to a race superior to humans than cosmological entities (which existed in the extended pantheon with much more mysterious attributes and presence, as if to divorce them from material conceptions). IDK much about Norse or Egyptian but my understanding is that they were a step above in the cosmological spectrum, as their liturgy has come to over time converge with the movement of planets. This is a natural phenomena, cargo cults seemingly are coming to follow similar evolutions. Aztecs were very confident Cortez was Quetzalcoatl after all.
The "Ancient Canaan Religion" once had a similar structure: YHVH was but one of the deities of the pantheon, roughly equivalent to Mars/Ares. Other deities were Shekinah, Elyon, El Shaddai... (El/Elohim is the proper word for deity/deities) they all appear in the jewish Torah with their proper name still, but they have (or so they claim, some people believe the jews aren't upfront with this) been come to signify the same god YHVH as something similar to Japan's Amaterasu happened, where YHVH's tribe militarily annexed the others and posed their deity as leader, and the absorbed all the others into him.
So then aren't they right? Isn't a religion equally like the others? Well what liberals fail to understand is that Christianity is not simply "Judaism 2: now we accept every race". Christianity is a religion born of Greek philosophy, particularly the school which were prominent in Alexandria of Egypt between -200 BC and 100 AD. The god of christianity is actually better identified with the "one" of neoplatonic philosophy than the biblical YHVH, to the point an entire schizo branch of christianity made their point to distinguish between the two and was very successful. The thing here is that with neoplatonism came the notion of god as
trascendent (which was probably inherited from Hindu but I don't know much about it, Platonism and Neoplatonism do seem to come to their same common root anyway). The Christian God then came to signify
cosmology and phenomenology itself. Which is how he came to claim attributes of eternity, infallibility, omniscience, etc. etc.
So then what is my point in all of this? My point is that belief in God as in, belief in God as trascendent in the way we conceive it now is an almost exclusively Christian thing. Again, maybe some asian religions like Daoism or Hinduism could also claim to be more primitive forms of it, but if you were to really go deep down they would be considered different starting points, which asyntothically come to the same place of worship of the absolute trascendent cosmological structure that christianity is ultimately a form of.
I hope to not have committed any historical inaccuracy and have you on board here. I am now going to shoot in favour of the modern leddit atheist and say there is a deep mistake christianity said to become a mockery such as this, and that was to dumb down their doctrine. Inside the educated circles of the church the philosophical structures of the religion were highly debated. But that was not the form which the church fed the masses at the time as they were not even able to read, let alone understand what the hell the concept of an
emanation was supposed to mean. To the masses christianity was really not different from Greek mythology alongside a renamed version of Tartarus, Asphodelus and Elysium. And it was simplified more and more the more question they posed, to the point where the church solidified some dogmas which you were supposed to accept not to understand, such as the relationship between the member(s) of the trinity. But from a moral perspective this was not conceived as an error because in the masses-fed version of the doctrine was still codified in a less
archetypal and more
instantiated form the path to heaven, both morally and spiritually. To understand and worship God meant to still walk the same trascendent path, although unconsciously, to salvation. In the end what mattered was not knowledge, but unwavering faith in the Christ, which meant to walk the path alongside him, no matter how you conceived him. This approach worked fine in the later Roman empire and the middle ages, but as educated men started regaining cultural power, it was no suprise faith couldn't hold if you kept just talking of God as just renamed Jupiter. Things were made worse with all the schisms starting from Luther onwards, as the various short-headed interpretations of the bible led to the birth of people like Melonie Mac who believes Jews must be worshipped and allowed to nuke Iran so they can rebuild the temple and have Jesus return. If that is the way the bible is taught to you, no wonder you become atheist. John's gospel is especially a key book which I think some denomination got rid of (not really sure but you americans refer to it as an apocripha don't you?) The book is blatantly Gnostic and in the early days it was debated if it was to be included in the canon. The decision in the end was yes, as it was needed as an encoding of the bridge between christianity and neoplatonism. Without it, Christianity couldn't be properly grounded as an universal religion.
Thomas of Aquinius is a key philosopher in all of this. The main concept by him introduced being God as the "first unmoved mover" and I think he's better understood nowadays as a
trascendent universal asyndote You have to imagine God to operate quite like a planet: every object orbits around him with a force which like Gravity is not imposed by the planet but just the result of its presence. This happens on a trascendental plane so the best way to say it in common terms is "things all come around to the will of God" and "All the roads lead to God in the end". Other than explaining things like "how come God has agency in the world but we don't observe any paranormal phenomena" I would encourage you to think as one consequence of this as "All religions in time will converge to the worship of the Christdom". And that is what Atheism, until it was co-opted by postmodernism, ultimately was demonstrating. The common laic current of thought in the end worshipped the same ideals and attributes as God christianity did, just removed from any mythological aspect. This has been coopted in various way I don't want to go into, but it seems no matter how much Molochian worshipping phoenician remnants stationed in California want to ruin it, trying to stray too far from these ideals won't stick too much. The more self-conscious of atheists recognize it somewhat calling themselves "Christian atheists" or something, Redditor atheists are animus possessed and project their religious instincts into antagonists of christdom, but in the end while a mockery of christiandom, they are christians the same. They believe in messianic figures. They worship institutional imperfections of truth (that is, what science represents for them) in the form of academias which exploit them. They cannot escape the God of christianity because God is real and they will always move around him suffering the more they distance themselves from him, for he is codified in the very structure of reality their brains are attuned to.
TLDR Christianity worships a trascendent entity which may or may not be identified with the unified avatar-deprived phenomenological consciousness and the Adam Kadmon as perfected form of abstracted humanity as the object of awe, other religions worship some superhuman species, possibly ayy lmaos. Christianity is the ultimate religion and these people are dunning kruger soyboys.
Maybe writing this was a mistake but it took too much time to delete it lol
. 
