Is religion a necessity for society?

[Insaanistan]

Actually, he insured no harm came to his enemies after they surrendered, and basically said, “If you don’t rebel, I’m cool with you.

I mean... so did Genghis Khan.

I don’t think massacring everyone in a tribe that was taller than a wagon wheel was, “Ill leave you alone if you don’t rebel. Kublai Khan was a lot more peaceful than Genghis. You can’t really compare the two.

[Albrenia]

In this thread, I have so far:
1) Demonstrated that people are naturally selfish and that they have no material reason not to be

2) Demonstrated that religion uniquely offers to society the service of convincing everyone of an immaterial reason for which the rewards and punishments for good and bad behavior are guaranteed and inescapable

3) Demonstrated that central reduced supposition of all religions, the existence of a meta-reality governing our own, has always been an unknown probability possibility, and as we move closer to confirming our theoretical capacity to simulate a very large number of subrealities, it moves closer to being a near certainty.

1) If people are all naturally selfish and only fear of punishment can keep them in line, why are there innumerable cases of humans acting in an entirely selfless way outside of religious teaching? Why do some people (atheists included) run into burning buildings to save strangers despite incredible risks to their own safety, even before the advent of technology which could give some 'fame' reward? Why do some of them (atheists include) even die doing this?

2) This may actually be the case, it may be uniquely suited to the task, but that does not mean a society cannot function with less effective techniques.

3) That's kind of silly. The existence of other dimensions or universes existing is no more is evidence of the religions of humans than a house existing next door is evidence martians live in it. I've never disputed that a Creator Being or gods 'may' exist, just there's no proof of any of the human-invented ones and quite a bit of circumstantial proof otherwise.

[Insaanistan]

Actually, he insured no harm came to his enemies after they surrendered, and basically said, “If you don’t rebel, I’m cool with you.

I'm sure the people killed in Ahzab, the people killed in Banu Qurayza, the people killed in Khaybar and the people who he cut the water to in Badr would love to know that.

Let’s see: Ahzab was a battle. Banu Qurayza was a tribe that was allied with the Muslims, but in the middle of the battle of Ahzab, tried to start an insurrection. Muhammad pbuh killed the warrior-aged men and one woman who killed a Muslim soldier. Everyone else was allowed to leave peacefully. The people of Khaybar tried to incite rebellion and war against the Muslims, and were defeated in battle. Muhammad pbuh divided their wealth, and Umar later made them leave. One of them, Safiyya, became his wife. She was the only one in her family to become Muslim, so Muhammad had in-laws, nieces and nephews who were practicing Jews. Yeah. And as for the wells of Badr, after the Muslims fled Makkah because of religious persecution to Abyssinia and Yathrib (Yathrib is now called Madinah), the Makkans took all their belongings to sell in Damascus. The Muslims pled with Muhammad to go to war, but he refused to, until God sent down verses ordering him to fight. They went to Badr, and to stop the Malians from being able to drink, thus making them exhausted before the battle, the Muslims filled the wells with rocks. The Muslims won the battle.

Yeah, anything else you wanna take out of context, NGR?

[Ankenland]

1) If people are all naturally selfish and only fear of punishment can keep them in line, why are there innumerable cases of humans acting in an entirely selfless way outside of religious teaching? Why do some people (atheists included) run into burning buildings to save strangers despite incredible risks to their own safety, even before the advent of technology which could give some 'fame' reward? Why do some of them (atheists include) even die doing this?

Kin selection? Stupidity? Failure to understand atheism and really get over religion, and the need to adhere to some other rebranded slave morality with slightly fewer mental gymnastics?

Who knows?

Would you do a thing like this? If so, why?

At any rate, the assertion that "a guy did a thing that one time" does not redress the assertion that most people are selfish, which is proven by the way in which most people with disposable incomes use that money - on their own wants, and not on other people's needs.

2) This may actually be the case, it may be uniquely suited to the task, but that does not mean a society cannot function with less effective techniques.

Well, sure. If we are to take the original question of the thread literally, "can a society exist without religion," we could just point out that there are Communist societies, which suppress religion, and continue to exist.

I have already walked back the original question to "is religion beneficial for society" because that is the generally useful question to ask.

3) That's kind of silly. The existence of other dimensions or universes existing is no more is evidence of the religions of humans than a house existing next door is evidence martians live in it. I've never disputed that a Creator Being or gods 'may' exist, just there's no proof of any of the human-invented ones and quite a bit of circumstantial proof otherwise.

Well, I am also not arguing for the historical realism of the miracles attributed to Christ or Muhammad, or the mercy of God.

I am arguing, specifically, for the theory of information-matter relativity, in which I postulate that we will inevitably create a large number of simulated worlds and populate them with intelligent constructs, from whose point of view everything will be real, and so we are almost certainly already in such a construction by at least one layer.

[Albrenia]

1) If people are all naturally selfish and only fear of punishment can keep them in line, why are there innumerable cases of humans acting in an entirely selfless way outside of religious teaching? Why do some people (atheists included) run into burning buildings to save strangers despite incredible risks to their own safety, even before the advent of technology which could give some 'fame' reward? Why do some of them (atheists include) even die doing this?

Kin selection? Stupidity? Failure to understand atheism and really get over religion, and the need to adhere to some other rebranded slave morality with slightly fewer mental gymnastics?

Who knows?

Would you do a thing like this? If so, why?

At any rate, the assertion that "a guy did a thing that one time" does not redress the assertion that most people are selfish, which is proven by the way in which most people with disposable incomes use that money - on their own wants, and not on other people's needs.

2) This may actually be the case, it may be uniquely suited to the task, but that does not mean a society cannot function with less effective techniques.

Well, sure. If we are to take the original question of the thread literally, "can a society exist without religion," we could just point out that there are Communist societies, which suppress religion, and continue to exist.

I have already walked back the original question to "is religion beneficial for society" because that is the generally useful question to ask.

3) That's kind of silly. The existence of other dimensions or universes existing is no more is evidence of the religions of humans than a house existing next door is evidence martians live in it. I've never disputed that a Creator Being or gods 'may' exist, just there's no proof of any of the human-invented ones and quite a bit of circumstantial proof otherwise.

Well, I am also not arguing for the historical realism of the miracles attributed to Christ or Muhammad, or the mercy of God.

I am arguing, specifically, for the theory of information-matter relativity, in which I postulate that we will inevitably create a large number of simulated worlds and populate them with intelligent constructs, from whose point of view everything will be real, and so we are almost certainly already in such a construction by at least one layer.

Then it seems we two at least are not really arguing since:

1) It seems you agree that people are not absolutely selfish, but do have a strong tendency towards it. As you yourself state though, other things can overcome this habit.

2) I agree that religion can be a very good thing for a society. It brings pitfalls along as well, which need to be avoided, of course.

3) That is a very interesting concept. I'd question if it actually matters if we're in a simulation which we cannot comprehend, escape or detect, though, since this is basically all we will know barring some failure in the simulations 'code' which allows us to detect it.

[Ankenland]

1) It seems you agree that people are not absolutely selfish, but do have a strong tendency towards it. As you yourself state though, other things can overcome this habit.

Yes. Convincing people that they cannot escape judgement is one of those things.

2) I agree that religion can be a very good thing for a society. It brings pitfalls along as well, which need to be avoided, of course.

Yes.

3) That is a very interesting concept. I'd question if it actually matters if we're in a simulation which we cannot comprehend, escape or detect, though, since this is basically all we will know barring some failure in the simulations 'code' which allows us to detect it.

In most cases, no - these are the same cases in which it would not matter if the world was created by some mythical figure spilling his seed.

However, for an atheist to concede that this is the case, he would concede that:

1. Physical reality was purposefuily created by higher, immaterial (or in this case supermaterial) consciousness, which is all-knowing and all-powerful
2. We are the principle focus of this creation, in the sense that, because massive physical systems can be simply represented in reduced form by logical systems, while logical systems such as brains and computers cannot be simply represented in reduced form by logical systems and must be represented relatively as-is, we are taking up most of the metaphysical space because of our logical density
3. The simulation will eventually end, and when it does, the admin will have logged images of every person who has ever lived and died, and will decide based on whatever it values, whether to delete them or whether to spin them up again and run them in another simulation, on either an individual or collective basis.

This would mean, effectively, that there is a God, which created us in His image and created the universe specifically to house us, and that death is nothing more than a gateway to judgement by higher consciousness.

[Washington Resistance Army]

He almost certainly wasn't tbh. His profession prior to becoming a warlord was the sort where literacy and general intelligence were generally needed and several sahih hadith make direct mention of him personally writing things, which you can't do if you're illiterate.

You do realize he wasn’t a warlord, right? He didn’t like war, and when he did go to war, he made it as humane as possible. And illiteracy was common in every profession except poet or scribe. His previous jobs were shepherd and merchant, and shepherding requires no literacy, and you don’t need to know how to read and write to know how much a coin is worth. The first time the Qur’ân was revealed to him, Muhammad pbuh was meditating in a cave, which he did every year, when suddenly, a bright light came. A voice he had never heard before, the voice of the angel Gabriel, said, “Iqra!”, which means, “read”. Muhammad pbuh replied “I do not know how to read.” He felt a great pain, as if he was being squeezed. Then the pain eased. “Read!” the voice said again. “I do not know how.” The pain began again. This repeated again. Then the angel spoke the words of God to Muhammad pbuh: “Read in the name of thy Lord who created. Created man from a clot of blood. Read: and thy lord is the Most Bounteous. Who teaches by the pen man what he did not know.” These are the first verses of Surah al-Ālaq. Muhammad pbuh, frightened, ran out of the cave and down the mountain, as the voice of Gabriel said to him, “You are the messenger of God, and I am the angel Gabriel”. He ran into his house and covered himself with a blanket. He told his wife, Khadijah, what had happened, and was convinced that he was being pestered by some evil spirit. His wife told him that God would not let such a thing happen to something like him. They decided to visit Khadijah’s cousin, Waraqa. He listened, then said, “This is Namus (Gabriel) that God sent to Moses. I wish I were younger. I wish I could live up to the time when your people would turn you out." Muhammad pbuh was basically like, “When my people do what now?”
Waraqa told it was nothing personal, people always do stuff like that to God’s prophets. Waraqa died a few days later. Like he predicted, Muhammad pbuh suffered, was stoned, almost assassinated, and cast out.

Whether he "liked" war or not is irrelevant, he was by every definition a warlord. I also notice you ignored that several hadith, some of the highest grades even, record him personally writing things. You can't do that if you're illiterate.

[Albrenia]

However, for an atheist to concede that this is the case, he would concede that:

1. Physical reality was purposefuily created by higher, immaterial (or in this case supermaterial) consciousness, which is all-knowing and all-powerful
2. We are the principle focus of this creation, in the sense that, because massive physical systems can be simply represented in reduced form by logical systems, while logical systems such as brains and computers cannot be simply represented in reduced form by logical systems and must be represented relatively as-is, we are taking up most of the metaphysical space because of our logical density
3. The simulation will eventually end, and when it does, the admin will have logged images of every person who has ever lived and died, and will decide based on whatever it values, whether to delete them or whether to spin them up again and run them in another simulation, on either an individual or collective basis.

This would mean, effectively, that there is a God, which created us in His image and created the universe specifically to house us, and that death is nothing more than a gateway to judgement by higher consciousness.

1. Purposefully created by a 'higher' being, true if this is the case. All-knowing is debatable, since system admins or developers can exist without being knowledgeable of all things occurring. All-powerful almost certainly in this hypothetical, since they'd have full access and knowledge of the code.

2. Seems a little speculative. If we're talking a system which is capable of simulating a 'play area' larger than billions of light years in scope and including activities, code and detail all the way down to quantum levels (and probably below) then we may just be one more part of it. It's entirely possible other beings on other planets exist far more intelligent and complex than us. If we were to explore a few galaxies fully and find no life, it would strengthen the idea of us being the 'focus'.

3. That's plausible in this hypothetical. Assuming a being in control of the simulation cares about the morality of how we act, as opposed to how interesting we are, or just favoured (like a favourite Sim in 'The Sims').

While I'd dispute this being a certainty, it is one possible shape the cosmos may take. Similarly to how I might not actually exist except as a creation of your mind, which is the sole real thing in an empty void.

As with most atheists, I don't doubt the possibility of higher powers, I just don't see any proof in general, or of any particular religion individually.

[Insaanistan]

You do realize he wasn’t a warlord, right? He didn’t like war, and when he did go to war, he made it as humane as possible. And illiteracy was common in every profession except poet or scribe. His previous jobs were shepherd and merchant, and shepherding requires no literacy, and you don’t need to know how to read and write to know how much a coin is worth. The first time the Qur’ân was revealed to him, Muhammad pbuh was meditating in a cave, which he did every year, when suddenly, a bright light came. A voice he had never heard before, the voice of the angel Gabriel, said, “Iqra!”, which means, “read”. Muhammad pbuh replied “I do not know how to read.” He felt a great pain, as if he was being squeezed. Then the pain eased. “Read!” the voice said again. “I do not know how.” The pain began again. This repeated again. Then the angel spoke the words of God to Muhammad pbuh: “Read in the name of thy Lord who created. Created man from a clot of blood. Read: and thy lord is the Most Bounteous. Who teaches by the pen man what he did not know.” These are the first verses of Surah al-Ālaq. Muhammad pbuh, frightened, ran out of the cave and down the mountain, as the voice of Gabriel said to him, “You are the messenger of God, and I am the angel Gabriel”. He ran into his house and covered himself with a blanket. He told his wife, Khadijah, what had happened, and was convinced that he was being pestered by some evil spirit. His wife told him that God would not let such a thing happen to something like him. They decided to visit Khadijah’s cousin, Waraqa. He listened, then said, “This is Namus (Gabriel) that God sent to Moses. I wish I were younger. I wish I could live up to the time when your people would turn you out." Muhammad pbuh was basically like, “When my people do what now?”
Waraqa told it was nothing personal, people always do stuff like that to God’s prophets. Waraqa died a few days later. Like he predicted, Muhammad pbuh suffered, was stoned, almost assassinated, and cast out.

Whether he "liked" war or not is irrelevant, he was by every definition a warlord. I also notice you ignored that several hadith, some of the highest grades even, record him personally writing things. You can't do that if you're illiterate.

“A warlord is a leader able to exercise military, economic, and political control over a subnational territory within a sovereign state due to their ability to mobilize loyal armed forces. These armed forces, usually considered militias, are loyal to the warlord rather than to the state regime.”
Timur was a warlord. Genghis Khan was a warlord. Julius Caesar was a warlord. Muhammad was just a military commander.

The Qur’ân never says whether he ever learned to read. We know that up until he became a prophet, he was illiterate. Some Hadith say that Gabriel taught him to read. Others say he never learned to read, and that Āli wrote everything for him.

[Hanafuridake]

Yes, human beings need to have a relationship with the divine in order to have a functioning and healthy society.

[North German Realm]

I'm sure the people killed in Ahzab, the people killed in Banu Qurayza, the people killed in Khaybar and the people who he cut the water to in Badr would love to know that.

Let’s see: Ahzab was a battle. Banu Qurayza was a tribe that was allied with the Muslims, but in the middle of the battle of Ahzab, tried to start an insurrection. Muhammad pbuh killed the warrior-aged men and one woman who killed a Muslim soldier. Everyone else was allowed to leave peacefully. The people of Khaybar tried to incite rebellion and war against the Muslims, and were defeated in battle. Muhammad pbuh divided their wealth, and Umar later made them leave. One of them, Safiyya, became his wife. She was the only one in her family to become Muslim, so Muhammad had in-laws, nieces and nephews who were practicing Jews. Yeah. And as for the wells of Badr, after the Muslims fled Makkah because of religious persecution to Abyssinia and Yathrib (Yathrib is now called Madinah), the Makkans took all their belongings to sell in Damascus. The Muslims pled with Muhammad to go to war, but he refused to, until God sent down verses ordering him to fight. They went to Badr, and to stop the Malians from being able to drink, thus making them exhausted before the battle, the Muslims filled the wells with rocks. The Muslims won the battle.

Yeah, anything else you wanna take out of context, NGR?

All three of what you said are wrong though. I'm not "Taking" anything "out of context". You're performing apologia by revising history to defend one of the most bloodthirsty warlords in Arabian History who literally attacked people to steal their food during a drought (which is what Khaybar was all about), who literally killed everyone in a tribe because he had a fetish for blood, and who literally conquered the peninsula to ensure he would be the only one to get the money people put in Kaaba. Apologism isn't cool when Christians do it -and they have made it into an art form, you don't even have the skill for it.

[Vivolkha]

My closest attempt at discrediting the validity of religion (again considering that strictly speaking their statements are unfalsifiable - else there would be no religious people to begin with) consists in pointing out that arbitrary religious rules derived from similarly arbitrary, unfalsifiable religious teachings/texts are occasionally harmful to human health (e.g. purdah, FGM) or directly contradict basic human biology (e.g. sexual abstinence requirements), with catastrophic results (e.g. priests abusing children).

These points, as well as the outdated understanding of the world of many holy texts (e.g. geocentrism) and the comical, desperate retrofitting of modern, proven scientifical facts that discredit them into religious teachings signal that, as unfalsifiable religious statements may be, evidence suggests they are false.

If I tell you that we are living in a simulation, and therefore you should hop around on one foot while patting your head for fifteen minutes, three times a day, you may be able to point out that this does nothing for you, and also that, in every possible case in which we live in a simulation, the case in which you are expected to hop on one foot while patting your head is only one absurd case out of infinite, equally absurd cases in which we could be living in a simulation.

There is no outdated idea about science or human cruelty that any particular religion has sustained, or could perform, which affects in any way the validity of their universal argument, which is that our reality exists within a meta-reality. If this could be the case, it would also be the case that the Chernobyl disaster disproved the theory of relativity.

Fine, then. This discredits most religions but not the universal argument behind them. But consider the following: if we live in a simulation, and have no way to tell if it is a simulation or not, then this is our reality regardless, and there is no point in asking if it is a simulation or not - as the result is indifferent - much less if somebody is directing it or not.

Can they address any of the three arguments I made in this thread?

Point me back to these arguments and I will try to address them.

[Han Scon]

Yes. Without religion, people's morals will slowly fade away and people will return to primitive thugs engaging in all sorts of degeneracy, only barely kept safe from each other by the rule of the law.

There is also the matter of, y'know, not burning in hell for eternity for disobeying god.

[The Grims]

Yes. Without religion, people's morals will slowly fade away and people will return to primitive thugs engaging in all sorts of degeneracy, only barely kept safe from each other by the rule of the law.

There is also the matter of, y'know, not burning in hell for eternity for disobeying god.

So you worship Zeus, to prevent yourself from ending up in Hades ?

[North German Realm]

Yes. Without religion, people's morals will slowly fade away and people will return to primitive thugs engaging in all sorts of degeneracy, only barely kept safe from each other by the rule of the law.

There is also the matter of, y'know, not burning in hell for eternity for disobeying god.

So you worship Zeus, to prevent yourself from ending up in Hades ?

Bad example, I'm pretty sure not worshiping Zeus isn't grounds for going into the Fields of Punishment (though I suppose WRA can give a more informed answer for this one?)

[The Grims]

So you worship Zeus, to prevent yourself from ending up in Hades ?

Bad example, I'm pretty sure not worshiping Zeus isn't grounds for going into the Fields of Punishment (though I suppose WRA can give a more informed answer for this one?)

Grand Cthulu then. Because you do not want to be around when he eats your family.

[Kowani]

So you worship Zeus, to prevent yourself from ending up in Hades ?

Bad example, I'm pretty sure not worshiping Zeus isn't grounds for going into the Fields of Punishment (though I suppose WRA can give a more informed answer for this one?)

It’s not.

[Nolo gap]

society is the statistical sum of everyone's behaviors, whatever they choose to believe in or not.

so in a literal sense, no.

but the ego doesn't like accepting that what isn't known isn't known.
so people like to make up stories, analyzing the unknown like a hidden box, by its inputs and outputs.

and then clinging adamantly to their analysis, imagining and claiming it to be some kind of absolute authority from on high.

oddly enough, there may well by something self aware that is neither physical nor imaginary,
becuse the unknown being unknown in no way prevents there from being billions of them.

its just that they owe absolutely nothing, to what people tell each other about it.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

What initiatied "God"?

I was hoping someone would ask that. With creation, the thing is, eventually, you run into something that has no creator. That thing is God. In the Holy Qur’ân, it says:
Say, “He is God, the one. God, the eternal refuge. He does not beget (have offspring), nor is he begotten (something else’s offspring or product). Nor is there to him any equivalent.”

Special pleading, in other words.

[Nolo gap]

society is the statistical sum of everyone's behaviors, whatever they choose to believe in or not.

so in a literal sense, no.

but the ego doesn't like accepting that what isn't known isn't known.
so people like to make up stories, analyzing the unknown like a hidden box, by its inputs and outputs.

and then clinging adamantly to their analysis, imagining and claiming it to be some kind of absolute authority from on high.

oddly enough, there may well by something self aware that is neither physical nor imaginary,
becuse the unknown being unknown in no way prevents there from being billions of them.

its just that they owe absolutely nothing, to what people tell each other about it.

I mean are we talking about an agnostic or atheist society here.

well the unknown is unknown whether we want it to be or not.
we can play lets pretend to our heart's content,
and that's mostly harmless as long as no one beats each other over the head for not pretending the same things, or even appearing not to.

some people do modify their behavior in positive ways encourage by what they believe, and that is a fine and good thing.

but the statistical sum of all our behaviors, with is what society is, well its up to how we actually act, not what we call ourselves or how we think we should.

[Insaanistan]

Let’s see: Ahzab was a battle. Banu Qurayza was a tribe that was allied with the Muslims, but in the middle of the battle of Ahzab, tried to start an insurrection. Muhammad pbuh killed the warrior-aged men and one woman who killed a Muslim soldier. Everyone else was allowed to leave peacefully. The people of Khaybar tried to incite rebellion and war against the Muslims, and were defeated in battle. Muhammad pbuh divided their wealth, and Umar later made them leave. One of them, Safiyya, became his wife. She was the only one in her family to become Muslim, so Muhammad had in-laws, nieces and nephews who were practicing Jews. Yeah. And as for the wells of Badr, after the Muslims fled Makkah because of religious persecution to Abyssinia and Yathrib (Yathrib is now called Madinah), the Makkans took all their belongings to sell in Damascus. The Muslims pled with Muhammad to go to war, but he refused to, until God sent down verses ordering him to fight. They went to Badr, and to stop the Malians from being able to drink, thus making them exhausted before the battle, the Muslims filled the wells with rocks. The Muslims won the battle.

Yeah, anything else you wanna take out of context, NGR?

All three of what you said are wrong though. I'm not "Taking" anything "out of context". You're performing apologia by revising history to defend one of the most bloodthirsty warlords in Arabian History who literally attacked people to steal their food during a drought (which is what Khaybar was all about), who literally killed everyone in a tribe because he had a fetish for blood, and who literally conquered the peninsula to ensure he would be the only one to get the money people put in Kaaba. Apologism isn't cool when Christians do it -and they have made it into an art form, you don't even have the skill for it.

Muhammad didn’t do the stuff you said. And nothing of what I said was wrong. For information on the Battle of Badr, watch The Message. As for the other things we spoke about, a quick Google search will help clarify the buttload of historical and religious inaccuracies you have given. Please let me know if you remain an ignorant Islamophobe after doing all this.

[Rojava Free State]

Yes, human beings need to have a relationship with the divine in order to have a functioning and healthy society.

Which is why Sweden was rated the most violent and dangerous nation on earth in 2019.

Wait, but it wasn't.

[Rojava Free State]

Yes. Without religion, people's morals will slowly fade away and people will return to primitive thugs engaging in all sorts of degeneracy, only barely kept safe from each other by the rule of the law.

There is also the matter of, y'know, not burning in hell for eternity for disobeying god.

Strange how I as an atheist abhor violence and believe that murder is generally bad.

Also so much for a kind, loving God. Just be honest, the only love abrahamic God feels is the love to hate.

[Insaanistan]

Yes. Without religion, people's morals will slowly fade away and people will return to primitive thugs engaging in all sorts of degeneracy, only barely kept safe from each other by the rule of the law.

There is also the matter of, y'know, not burning in hell for eternity for disobeying god.

Strange how I as an atheist abhor violence and believe that murder is generally bad.

Also so much for a kind, loving God. Just be honest, the only love abrahamic God feels is the love to hate.

Not in my religion. You only go to hell if your are a really bad person. Even Islamophobes can go to heaven.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Whether he "liked" war or not is irrelevant, he was by every definition a warlord. I also notice you ignored that several hadith, some of the highest grades even, record him personally writing things. You can't do that if you're illiterate.

“A warlord is a leader able to exercise military, economic, and political control over a subnational territory within a sovereign state due to their ability to mobilize loyal armed forces. These armed forces, usually considered militias, are loyal to the warlord rather than to the state regime.”
Timur was a warlord. Genghis Khan was a warlord. Julius Caesar was a warlord. Muhammad was just a military commander.

The Qur’ân never says whether he ever learned to read. We know that up until he became a prophet, he was illiterate. Some Hadith say that Gabriel taught him to read. Others say he never learned to read, and that Āli wrote everything for him.

"Warlord" is being used in a more generic sense, don't be a pedant because it just underminds your case.

Unless several hadith of the highest quality are wrong (which would cast huge doubts on your entire religion because oral tradition is massively important in Islam) he wasn't illiterate. Islamic tradition says he sent messengers with letters he himself wrote to various leaders in the regions surrounding Arabia. Admittedly this probably actually didn't happen but it does destroy the notion that he was illiterate.

So you worship Zeus, to prevent yourself from ending up in Hades ?

Bad example, I'm pretty sure not worshiping Zeus isn't grounds for going into the Fields of Punishment (though I suppose WRA can give a more informed answer for this one?)

As Kowani said, it's not. Traditionally you have to do some pretty heinous shit to be punished in the afterlife and the basics of eusebia, despite commonly being translated simply as piety, really just comes down to "be a good person". Reincarnation also is a fairly common belief amongst Hellenists.