false and you completely ignore the polytheistic past of ancient hebrews.
El was his own father deity that originated before ancient hebrews existed. people who migrated to Israel in the north used El as their primary deity, A Mesopotamian deity
Actually, you could say it the other way around just as easily. If you know Oral Torah/Midrash well enough, you'd realize that this is a valid claim within the framework of textual/religious exegesis. The claim is on behalf of Midrashic accounts reaches a general consensus stating that everyone knew who G-d was and that He created the world. Enosh was considered responsible for starting idolatry in that he began to worship the sun and different constellations as different manifestations of G-d. Within a few generations from Enosh (who lived to 905 years), idolatry became widespread and they were making up new religions completely. So, you could actually argue otherwise from a religious standpoint and present an entirely new set of questions which haven't been checked into so much.
I don't expect you to take that seriously seeing as your an atheist and aren't interested in verifying the stories of the Torah as true because your already unquestionably "more rational" conclusions have ruled out the possibility it can't be anything more than fairy tales. But, since the claim(s) made in the Midrash can't offhand be checked easily, you're very unlikely to be able to say otherwise on any other rational grounds than the notion that you think it's BS intuitively. So, before you start referencing middle aged Babylonian religions to deface the Torah and assuming we stole their religion - perhaps you should check both sides of the argument.
But, whether you agree the above comments or not, regardless of the semitic word elohim having implication to multiple gods and to other foreign gods - it also means judges. If you assume that the Torah was an attempt to reform neo-babylonian religions into monotheism through a series of authors, it makes more sense to approach it from another angle than refuting the word elohim. Simply because if you assume the author was trying to rewrite religion and convey a new message (since monotheism in this form would be radically different in terms of theology than any other religion at the time), you should also assume that the author wasn't just writing down words without specific meaning, but rather used certain words to convey a specific message. That is a very rational assumption to make in everyone's book - atheist or not. Therefor, it is not unreasonable to assume that the use of describing G-d with the word Elokim is not to convey a specific message.
One of the biggest flaws about documentary hypothesis is it often relies on common language to deduct through linguistics an original source without taking into account what Midrash/Talmud says on the assumption that they're only later developments. Which is a very big stretch to make and an even bigger reason as to why it remains known as "Documentary Hypothesis", not "Documentary Theory". So, before you shoot down other interpetrations, go learn the Hebrew language. Because even if you don't believe in the Torah being divine, it is not out of the question to assume just as easily that the word usage was alluding to a matter of judgement and severity.
Additionally, even amongst biblical critics it is very questionable as to the origins of the Hebrews and where they actually took their religious sources from. Certain things they tend to agree on more universally, but there's a lot of holes in their claims. Again, "documentary hypothesis", not "theory". So don't assert your shtuss as authoritative if no one agrees on the matter anyways. If you want more accurate answers, look to what we've always said instead of relying solely on comparative religion to self verify your already contested claims which conveniently suit your agenda.
Next please.
