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.