I've detected your comment is being downvoted to oblivion. To preserve your shame forever I've saved your comment below:

Your post was vague, so I'm not sure whether you were missing my point or not. I'm not talking about the origin of the word, but of thinking in general that it is atheism. Certain muslims calling it polytheism makes perfect sense. And the reason you think it is odd is for the same reason I mentioned. Ideas of the supernatural as you understand it and it being radially distinct from the natural were actually not omnipresent in the past. The idea of the divine was to frame into context where in the hierarchy of reality humans lied. Anything considered a higher power relative to humans (or anything else really) could be a divinity. This could mean something as vague as a stronger smarter race somewhere, to (non anthropomorphic) natural forces, abstract properties, or whatever else have you. before firm philosophies of the supernatural existed, many people's ideas of gods were actually pretty mundane, despite obviously having some dubious science involved. The problem is that god is a term that can refer to anything. People can't be wrong about their historical equivalent usage. Some people used it as a term for the ultimate powers in reality, whatever those might be. So someone who thought humans were on top of the hierarchy could be classified as a polytheist to them, since within their metric the person is simply saying that humans, of which there are many organize into powerful groups and these are the highest things. A-theism would be meaningless to them. The purpose of religion was to look at the hierarchy, and find out what was the "gods." The top thing to focus on. This was obviously not the only way it was framed, but this was the general reason that there was no common identity for atheism back then. The way divinity was looked at was simply not really something that the absence of was a coherent stance to the question many were asking. You can't pretend that's not a valid way to look at things based on a modern redefinition, when the word itself is what is being discussed. Metaphysical questions are another matter. So yes. It is obviously nonsense to say "every" god that has ever been called a god by anyone does not exist, since some of them are not really sense-making to question. You have to make the further clarification that you are using a specific definition for god, and excluding certain things. Which in the end, tends to be a very christian focused definition. Since if you allow every historical definition, its simply too many to validly reject.