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.