Were other European religions better than Christianity?

[The Grand Nudger]

I think not. I think christianity did do good in putting an end to the violent gladiatorial fights, which were a means of sacrifice to roman gods.
The ancient greeks, gauls and germanic people often sacrificed humans, and suicide was seen by the germanic peoples as a shortcut to Valhalla.

Duels to the death persisted for a very long time after the spread of christianity. Gladiatorial fights were entertainment first, whatever else a distant second. Christianity burned people at the stake, or dumped them in rivers, or put them on the needle. Suicide was most definitely not seen as a "shortcut to valhalla", it was seen as a last ditch effort if one failed to die in battle. Specifically, they would jump off of a cliff, or fall on their own sword. No poisoning, no slitting of the wrists....only those who die violent deaths need apply. Christianity has similar provisions (though christians probably don't like the comparison) in martyrdom.

Paganism, is not even a religion. It's a collective name for other religions beside today's world religions.
Not that I do not respect the ancient faiths, and also praise the recon movements for their accuracy and devotion.
However, things like...Wicca and Ecclecticism ring all "fluff" and "teen angst" to me.

Many of the worlds current religions are pagan religions. It's only a blanket term for non-abrahamic religions. Essentially it's a derogatory "redneck" jab (pagan meaning: country dweller), which is ironic, given the backwater origins of abrahamic religions. As soon as abrahamic religions made it out of the woods, they looked down upon those in the woods with disdain...so apparently they've always been a bunch of hypocritical, sanctimonious assholes.

I can't say that I respect ancient faiths any more than current ones. It's all the same to me. Whether positive or negative benefits of any faith accrued has little do to with a faith, and everything to do with the people of that faith. I'd like to see you make the case that vicarious redemption is anything more than juvenile wishful thinking. There are angsty christian teens (and many many more of them). Wicca is just a modern alternative to abrahamic religions that found a convenient backdrop in paganism. An attempt was made to draw authority from age, and this same attempt is made in service of christianity. The urges, motivations, and claims are identical (gods, magic, morality, reward) the descriptions are different.

But I think that you're simply taking the part of history that you want to suit yourself, and leave the other parts out.
Don't worry. This is a common feature that you share with other anti-theists.
If we, for example, look at the christianisation of Lithuania, we see a crusade. But if we take a look at Ireland, we see a more peaceful conversion.

What exactly do you have to gain by spreading such misinformation?
What, really? Do you feel better about yourself? I think this is young people's stuff. I've known atheists with whom I can have a conversation on religion without that person bringing up the inquisition card, or "bloody history" card. Like, people know how to be bloody without showing any religious reasons.
But most people simply disregard the secular reasons behind the inquisition and cite "they did it fo' jewsus". No, I do not think that it is as simple as that.

I think you're trying to manufacture a point of contention where none exists. So? Religions do move into areas peacefully, but it is a rare thing for them to do so unless the area they move into is uninhabited, or very sparsely inhabited. Your mention of Ireland as an area of peaceful conversion is garbage. That's a story peddled by christian monks about their mythical demigod "Patrick". In any case, "peaceful christian conversion" and "ireland" do not belong together at all. Al Qaeda are amateur bomb-makers compared to the IRA. While the case could be made that these conflicts are political (or secular) in nature, one cannot ignore the element of religion...which is often found in service of these sorts of conflicts. That doesn't detract from the notion that religion is not a force for good, it re-enforces it.

Also, we actually criticize Spaniards who colonized the Americas as brutal, when they destroyed the Aztec empire.
Although it certainly is sad that colonisation has brought destruction upon the people, and later along with slave labor, allowed them to be constantly exploited, it certainly has brought an end to the constant warfare-sacrificial cycle, where the Aztecs went to war with other less powerful tribes or confederacies, brought in trophies in forms of slaves, and later on, sacrificed them on the altars of their pyramids.
This not to say about the general lifestyle of aztecs, as they were, in one form or the other, a near perfectly moral society. Thievery, murder(other than the sacrifices) and most petty crimes were not known to the aztec people. They were also blessed with plenty in terms of crops, and knew no hunger. They used the gold that is of immense worth to us, as nothing more than decorative ornaments, and did away with the materialistic lifestyles that we share.

Boy you sure do know a lot about Aztec civilization.........

We don't criticize them as brutal, it's a dry statement of fact. We criticize them because what they did was brutal, by any definition. I don't see any increase in peace in Central and South America as a result of colonization. I don't know why you seem to think there has been. Didn't you just make a remark about conflicts being secular in nature? So quick to defend religion against secularism, and then so quick to blame religion for something the aztecs did as being caused by religion. Thing is, it doesn't matter which angle you approach this from. Personally I approach it from both, because the aztec's rituals were very practical for them...as most religions have been for any given civilization. Colonization replaced one system of brutality with another. It didn't even bring the natives any of the benefits of the developed world, specifically health, as they just died off from disease. A near perfect moral society? Except all of those ritual sacrifices right...lol? Did you just make the claim that there were no Aztec criminals?



Okay, sorry, moving forward. The aztecs were not "blessed" with anything. They worked damn hard for the crops, and still they absolutely did know famine, not just hunger, generational famine. Their system of agriculture and irrigation was impressive...... for a stone age culture. It was still insufficient. A huge motivator for their expansionist drive was the acquisition of fertile land. They used the gold that they had for the same purpose that we did, they manufactured beautiful textiles, they altered their appearance with makeup, tattoos, and even by shaving down their teeth. Artwork was everywhere, and there was a wealthy ruling class and then there were human livestock. What about that seems to be a rejection of "materialistic lifestyles"? Perhaps you should stick to something you have actual knowledge of, like ethnocentrism and bigotry, and leave anthropology to those of us who are capable of discerning reality from fiction?

To recap, you've manufactured a litany of fantasies here so that you could take some jab at materialism. You could have saved yourself embarrassment and simply posted a one-liner against materialism and secular societies. How hard would that have been?