• @Dasus
    link
    English
    0
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    You literally claimed that RIVAL gods was evidence of proto monotheism…

    You have bad reading comprehension. You brought up ancient Mesopotamia as an example. They may have had several gods, but they were essentially monotheistic in the context that it counts. That IS more or less the birthplace of monotheism. All the ills of monotheism, dogma and a strong hierarchy, are clearly present in ancient Mesopotamian religion, so it’s very unlike the polytheism of say Hinduism, Greeks, Romans and the Norse.

    “Quotations are not needed when saying Viking culture”

    No yeah, definitely, much in the same way as all those extinct big lizards were dinosaurs, right?

    It’s Scandinavian culture, not “viking culture”, lol. This is exactly what I mean. I see no reason to even try to have a chat with you, since you’re arrogant while definitely not having earned the right to be, being that ignorant.

    can’t even correctly utilize logical fallacies in your arguments

    Thanks for another laugh, lol. The irony. chefskiss

    This was a common claim by the same sources that you utilized for your claim about “Viking rape law”.

    Yeah no, again, even the assumptions you use to think about this are wrong. So utterly, utterly wrong. But seeing as you clearly have the sources for these claims at hand, please, produce them.

    Also… I thought you said “Vikings” was a job, not an ethnicity?

    I literally said “Norse society”, not “viking society”. It is a profession, but you’re clearly unwilling or unable to understand that, so I used the silly language you insist upon, even after having made myself clear on the proper use of the term. It’s how we just have to accept the fact that “literally” is nowadays used as emphasis.

    It’s a common claim from the source material you based your “Viking rape law argument on”.

    Did I say polytheism makes one an unconditional pacifist? No you claimed that polytheistic societies were more tolerant and progressive. You also defined tolerant as equating to less violent.

    See this is why you talking about logical fallacies made me almost choke on laughter. What you’re trying to do there is an incredibly pisspoor strawman. You’re saying that if a thing Y is likely to make thing X less attribute A, then thing X can not have attribute A at all. Which is, again, hilarious.

    Unlike many empire builders, Genghis Khan embraced the diversity of his newly conquered territories. He passed laws declaring religious freedom for all and even granted tax exemptions to places of worship. This tolerance had a political side—the Khan knew that happy subjects were less likely to rebel—but the Mongols also had an exceptionally liberal attitude towards religion. While Genghis and many others subscribed to a shamanistic belief system that revered the spirits of the sky, winds and mountains, the Steppe peoples were a diverse bunch that included Nestorian Christians, Buddhists, Muslims and other animistic traditions.

    The Christians went over to the “Holy Land” to literally rape and pillage, because they considered those people there to have the wrong beliefs. Did the Mongol empire kill a lot of people? Yeah, they did. But had he been a dogmatic Christian monotheist, he’d have killed even more.

    The only reason Christians got a foothold in Greece, Rome, Norway and Asia was that those societies were tolerant of the new god, not realising that the believers of that new god would eventually hunt and kill them for believing wrong.

    “specific type of European polytheism”

    Nah, it’s pretty global, which you’d know if you had any education on the subject, but you don’t.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      08 months ago

      They may have had several gods, but they were essentially monotheistic in the context that it counts.

      Semantics.

      That IS more or less the birthplace of monotheism. All the ills of monotheism, dogma and a strong hierarchy, are clearly present in ancient Mesopotamian religion

      You do understand how long the ancient history of Mesopotamia is? Monotheism was only prevalent towards the later aspect of ancient history. You are ignoring thousands of years of history to force this concept to bend to your argument.

      All the ills of monotheism, dogma and a strong hierarchy, are clearly present in ancient Mesopotamian religion, so it’s very unlike the polytheism of say Hinduism, Greeks, Romans and the Norse.

      Lol, you don’t think the Greek, Hindu, or Romans were hierarchical, or engaged in dogmatic beliefs?

      No yeah, definitely, much in the same way as all those extinct big lizards were dinosaurs, right?

      Lol, wtf are you talking about? You were the person who brought them up to begin with, if you don’t like the nomenclature of “Viking” then you shouldn’t have utilized it in the first place.

      However, unless you believe that Scandinavian people of this era and profession possess no culture, then utilizing Viking culture without quotations is grammatically correct.

      It’s Scandinavian culture, not “viking culture”, lol. This is exactly what I mean.

      Not when we’re are talking about a period of time before the concept of Scandinavians… Priest recording history in the 2nd century aren’t going to have much to say about Scandinavian culture you dolt.

      Yeah no, again, even the assumptions you use to think about this are wrong. So utterly, utterly wrong. But seeing as you clearly have the sources for these claims at hand, please, produce them.

      Lol, you were the one who brought up “Viking rape laws”, now I have to source your claims? Who the hell do you think the primary source is if not priest?

      literally said “Norse society”, not "viking society

      Lol, no you called me racist for saying the primary sources believed Viking culture to be based on raping and enslaving Christians. Implying an internal contradiction with your prior claim.

      You’re saying that if a thing Y is likely to make thing X less attribute A, then thing X can not have attribute A at all.

      Lol, no. See my argument is rebutting your claim. Your claim was that polytheistic societies were more tolerant and progressive than mono theistic societies. I just gave examples that refute your claims.

      You were the one who defined both tolerance and progressive, my examples about the Mongols was to explain that those terms were subjective. I can’t control the fact that you incorrectly interpreted my argument to apply to the entirety of your argument.

      but the Mongols also had an exceptionally liberal attitude towards religion.

      You’re just repeating what I said…? The point was that you claimed polytheistic people were both more progressive and more tolerant. I said those are too subjective of terms to blanket entirely different cultures with. You negated that and claimed that tolerance equates to non violence. I brought up Mongols specifically because they were liberal to religious beliefs but very violent.

      The Christians went over to the “Holy Land” to literally rape and pillage, because they considered those people there to have the wrong beliefs.

      And the Mongols did not? The Mongols believed that the Khan had celestially Devine right to rule the entirety of humanity.

      Even claiming that the crusades were strictly about religion is kinda ridiculous even if you don’t agree with historic materialism. There is plenty of evidence to suggest the majority of campaigns to the holy land were more about economics than theology.

      Did the Mongol empire kill a lot of people? Yeah, they did. But had he been a dogmatic Christian monotheist, he’d have killed even more.

      I’m guessing you’ve never read much history outside of European history? They would wipe out entire cities and then send scouting parties back days later to kill anyone who hid or came to find their families. They literally couldn’t kill anymore people without slowing down the campaign. The population of Baghdad didn’t return it’s height during this period for nearly a thousand years. You are talking out of your ass.

      The only reason Christians got a foothold in Greece, Rome, Norway and Asia was that those societies were tolerant of the new god, not realising that the believers of that new god would eventually hunt and kill them for believing wrong.

      Again, you are being extremely reductive. Up until the 2-3rd century Christianity would be hard to define as strictly monotheistic. One of the first major internal contradictions that occured in the church were arguments about the Trinity. Prior to that even popes rarely found real importance in monotheism, as Manichaeism a dualist religion was very popular at the time, and often interchangeable with Christianity. Your statement presumes that over a period of 300 years the church insidiously carried out a conspiracy to slowly infiltrate and turn polytheistic societies. This is just conspiratorial thinking, and requires you to ignore hundreds of years of written history and context, you are making conclusions and working backwards.

      Nah, it’s pretty global, which you’d know if you had any education on the subject, but you don’t.

      Ahh, yes because you’ve done such a good job showing that you are an expert in the field…

      Would you like to give me another historical interpretation of Scandinavian history that indicates you are a worldly scholar of history? You know what, I think I’m okay without hearing another reductive and eurocentric hot take.

      • @Dasus
        link
        English
        08 months ago

        Semantics

        No it isn’t. It’s history. And I’m tired of arguing your quackery which makes no sense, and which you have no sources for.

        Everything you write reveals your ignorance.

        Lol, you don’t think the Greek, Hindu, or Romans were hierarchical, or engaged in dogmatic beliefs?

        I’ve actually studied this. I don’t have opinions on it, I have knowledge.

        Read up, little contrarian.

        And use fucking sources.

        Lol, wtf are you talking about? You were the person who brought them up to begin with, if you don’t like the nomenclature of “Viking” then you shouldn’t have utilized it in the first place.

        Vikings existed. They were a small part of Norse society. You can’t even understand the distinction.

        I’m not even gonna bother reading the rest of your uneducated guesses which contradict the consensus on these things

        Oh my eye happened on one, too lol to skip:

        Your statement presumes that over a period of 300 years the church insidiously carried out a conspiracy to slowly infiltrate and turn polytheistic societies

        It wasn’t a conspiracy. It was open policy? Have you ever had a single history lesson? :D It wasn’t hundreds of years, it’s been several thousand (in different forms)

        https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianization

        https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_and_colonialism

        Through a variety of methods, Christian missionaries acted as the “religious arms” of the imperialist powers of Europe Christian missionaries were initially portrayed as “visible saints, exemplars of ideal piety in a sea of persistent savagery”. However, by the time the colonial era drew to a close in the later half of the 20th century, missionaries were viewed as “ideological shock troops for colonial invasion whose zealotry blinded them”, colonialism’s “agent, scribe and moral alibi”.

        Why are you so angry that monotheism is inherently violent, unlike polytheism? Is it because you’re still formally monotheistic, but know you don’t believe in it, but don’t have the balls to actually admit you’re an atheist?

        The things I’ve talked about aren’t my opinions, or even some novel or fringe ideas.

        They’ve been around for centuries.

        David Hume said that unlike monotheism, polytheism is pluralistic in nature, unbound by doctrine, and therefore far more tolerant than monotheism, which tends to force people to believe in one faith.(David Hume, Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion and the Natural History of Religion)

        Here’s some more reading for you little nephew

        https://books.google.fi/books?id=S1tQ5Larst0C&redir_esc=y

        https://books.google.fi/books?id=9P4TU-0zEs8C&redir_esc=y

        Arvind Sharma, “A Primal Perspective on the Philosophy of Religion”

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          08 months ago

          No it isn’t. It’s history.

          No, it really isn’t. You are reducing thousands of years of history to “basically monotheism” because it suits your argument. You are literally trying to label one of the oldest polytheistic religions in the world as a monotheistic despite the fact that they only interacted with each other for a relatively insignificant amount of time.

          And I’m tired of arguing your quackery which makes no sense, and which you have no sources for.

          Claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. You are constantly forgetting that you were the one who made the original affirmation.

          My only claim is that you have no idea what you’re talking about.

          actually studied this. I don’t have opinions on it, I have knowledge.

          Lol, well actually, I invented history, and have been studying it before written time! You see how anecdotal evidence means next to nothing?

          And use fucking sources.

          Again, I was the first person to ask about sources? The burden of proof is laid upon the person who made the claim, not the rebuttal.

          Vikings existed. They were a small part of Norse society. You can’t even understand the distinction.

          When did I say they didn’t?

          wasn’t a conspiracy. It was open policy? Have you ever had a single history lesson? :D It wasn’t hundreds of years, it’s been several thousand (in different forms)

          Lol, we were talking about the beginning of the Christian church, specifically before the policy was made prior to the council of nicaea.

          Why are you so angry that monotheism is inherently violent, unlike polytheism?

          Lol, I’m not upset. I’m just explaining how you have no grounds to make that claim. You haven’t given any body of evidence that established your narrative, nor offered any evidence that prohibits alternative explanations if your narrative was proved in the first place.

          Is it because you’re still formally monotheistic, but know you don’t believe in it, but don’t have the balls to actually admit you’re an atheist?

          Lol, what? Your abilities to confidently jump to wildly inaccurate conclusions is pretty amazing. I don’t particularly care for any religious thoughts unless its about how it relates to culture or history.

          I like history, I don’t like people making silly unprovable claims.

          David Hume said that unlike monotheism, polytheism is pluralistic in nature, unbound by doctrine, and therefore far more tolerant than monotheism, which tends to force people to believe in one faith.(David Hume, Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion and the Natural History of Religion)

          Lol, the philosopher from the enlightenment period? You know that is not actually an academically appropriate source for history, right?

          There’s a difference between philosophy and actual history my dude.

          And a couple of the books you listed look pretty interesting, but just based on the summaries. I highly doubt they actually attempt to make the same claims as you.

          • @Dasus
            link
            English
            18 months ago

            There’s no point in arguing someone like you who has zero understanding and is not ready to educate himself on the subject.

            Just because you refuse the evidence in favour of opinions you pull out of your arse doesn’t make the evidence less credible.

            There’s tons of books on this, and the mechanisms the theories suppose are very clearly written out in excerpts of those books, since you’re clearly nor a person with the ability to read an entire book.

            You are literally trying to label one of the oldest polytheistic religions in the world

            First off, “oldest”? You truly, truly make me laugh. Like heartily.

            The reasons for why monotheism sucks began in early henotheism, which is a word I bet my left ball you don’t even know the meaning off.

            Your temper tantrum won’t change the consensus on the matter, lil guy.

            Was Atenisn mono- or polytheistic?

            (Rhetorical question, I honestly don’t care about anything you say. Imagine how frustrating it’d be for you to try to discuss the intricacies of your favourite movie/game with some seven year old who’s barely seen proper movies or played games, and definitely doesn’t have a good grasp of them. That’s roughly what this conversation is like to me.)

            Enjoy your ignorance.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              18 months ago

              There’s no point in arguing someone like you who has zero understanding and is not ready to educate himself on the subject.

              Ditto?

              refuse the evidence in favour of opinions

              You haven’t given me any evidence that supports your argument. You’re just rambling about philosophy.

              There’s tons of books on this, and the mechanisms the theories suppose are very clearly written out in excerpts of those books, since you’re clearly nor a person with the ability to read an entire book.

              Anecdotal…

              First off, “oldest”?

              Learn to read…“one of the oldest”

              Way to avoid the topic though.

              reasons for why monotheism sucks began in early henotheism, which is a word I bet my left ball you don’t even know the meaning off

              Lol, that excited to become eunuch? Henotheism probably isn’t going to be an unfamiliar concept if I’ve already mentioned dualism…

              won’t change the consensus on the matter, lil guy.

              Lol, I’m just correctting you. You’re the one whos relinquishing themselves with ad hominem. Also, ya haven’t established there’s a consensus, you’re just saying trust me bro.

              Atenisn mono- or polytheistic?

              Neither… You do know that history isn’t some walled garden that only Scandinavian have access too, right?

              Just because I don’t partake in your pet philosophical theory doesn’t’t mean I can’t enjoy reading history.

              • @Dasus
                link
                English
                18 months ago

                I don’t understand the mental gymnastics needed to say “you haven’t provided any evidence” when I’ve told you the arguments, who made them, why and where you can read more about them.

                You’re pretending as if you don’t know how to use a search engine. Or open links, for that matter.

                https://books.google.fi/books?id=S1tQ5Larst0C&redir_esc=y

                https://books.google.fi/books?id=9P4TU-0zEs8C&redir_esc=y

                Arvind Sharma, “A Primal Perspective on the Philosophy of Religion”

                https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced_conversion

                https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianization

                https://devayasna.wordpress.com/2016/12/23/a-theory-of-polytheism-2/

                We have noted in a previous blog that polytheism distinguished between justice and cult while monotheism merged them and projected justice itself as the true cult. Assmann claims – a point that is not fully clear to me – that monotheism marked a separation between religion and state while they remained indistinct under polytheism. In the Egyptian case, the Pharaoh acted as god’s deputy on earth. Assuming a distinction between heaven and earth, the Pharaoh maintained order on earth, on behalf of the gods in heaven. The state thus assumes religious authority and its power becomes absolute. Monotheism challenged and overthrew precisely this absolutism by introducing a separation between religion and state:

                Religion is now constituted as a sphere with its own normativity, which might even override the political normativity of the state.

                https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_monotheism

                Criticism of monotheism has occurred throughout history. Critics have described monotheism as a cause of ignorance, oppression, and violence.

                The intolerance of narrow monotheism is written in letters of blood across the history of man from the time when first the tribes of Israel burst into the land of Canaan. The worshippers of the one jealous God are egged on to aggressive wars against people of alien [beliefs and cultures]. They invoke divine sanction for the cruelties inflicted on the conquered. The spirit of old Israel is inherited by Christianity and Islam, and it might not be unreasonable to suggest that it would have been better for Western civilization if Greece had moulded it on this question rather than Palestine.

                You’re just regurgitating things you literally pull out of your arse. Have you ever taken a single course of theology, or studied it independently? I can bet you haven’t. And you’re not willing to look at the materials I giving. So you’re asserting something, without an explanation, without evidence, and the rhetoric you try to use is ridiculous as fuck: “Oh polytheism is more tolerant than monotheism? Well explain the mongol empire.”

                That’s honestly the “best” strawman I’ve seen this year. It’s ludicrous, and the cherry on top is that you larp someone who understands how rhetoric works. :D

                Thanks for the entertainment, but please realise that you’re just doing this because you want a debate, not because you know anything about either philosophy or religion.

                • @[email protected]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  18 months ago

                  don’t understand the mental gymnastics needed to say “you haven’t provided any evidence” when I’ve told you the arguments, who made them, why and where you can read more about them.

                  When you write academic papers, do you just add entire books as sources? No, you supply evidence within the book that reinforces your argument. Just simply pointing at a book and saying that is my evidence is just a poor attempt to appeal to authority.

                  You’re pretending as if you don’t know how to use a search engine. Or open links, for that matter.

                  Again, you’re pretending that giving someone a title of a book is an academically honest way to supply supporting evidence to a statement.

                  And based upon the “evidence” that you have supplied that isn’t behind a paywall, I’d highly doubt they’re making the same definitive conclusion you have.

                  My initial rebuttal still stands. We don’t have the same quality of sources or cultural context for polytheistic societies to make adequate comparative studies. Even if we did, terms like progressive and tolerance are still too subjective to blanket different social and cultural mores too.

                  And finally it is exceedingly rare for an actual consensus about historical social motivations. There is no overall consensus that polytheistic are more progressive or tolerant, as there is no consensus on just how impactful religion is to societies. For every 4 books you can find about this specific topic, I can find 10 more over the theory of historic materialism that claims religion is just window dressing.

                  We have noted in a previous blog that polytheism distinguished between justice and cult while monotheism merged them and projected justice itself as the true cult.

                  Yes professor, you see this blog I found …

                  The primary claim in that blog is that political and religious violence are independent of each other. This is not a provable claim.

                  Have you ever taken a single course of theology, or studied it independently? I can bet you haven’t.

                  Again, I am talking about history. You are the one who is trying to force this conversation into a theological one. As I said, I am completely uninterested in your realm of fantasy outside of its historical context.

                  So you’re asserting something, without an explanation, without evidence,

                  Just denying something… You’re the one making the claim here.

                  Oh polytheism is more tolerant than monotheism? Well explain the mongol empire."

                  Lol, keep on purposely misinterpreting… You are the one who defined tolerance as less violent, and now you’re mad your definition is so easy to disprove.

                  That’s honestly the “best” strawman I’ve seen this year. It’s ludicrous, and the cherry on top is that you larp someone who understands how rhetoric works. :D

                  Lol, do you want a redo? How about you try defining tolerance again in a way that’s less subjective?

                  because you know anything about either philosophy or religion.

                  Lol, this was about history. I’m sorry you don’t know any methodology that can be found outside of the philosophy department of a liberal arts building.

                  You are presenting philosophical theory as fact, which is just academically dishonest. People are free to make their case, but you are forming definitive conclusions, and you should know that’s just illogical even in philosophy.