Is religion a necessity for society?

[Insaanistan]

Yes, but all good people regardless of religion (given they did not know Islam was the true faith) goes to heaven. By which I mean, a Muslim can’t just say, “In that case, I’ll just be a good Christian! Now I can eat pork and drink beer and go to a night club and don’t have to pray five times a day!”

All due respect, if Muhammad and some other fellows of your religion's Sahabah got to Heaven, being a "good person" is very much not a requirement.

“Oh yeah, that Muhammad guy, I hate him. Freeing slaves, not lying, fighting for women’s rights, anti-racist. I mean, who does that? Ugh.”
How is Muhammad pbuh a bad person. History shows he was quite the opposite.

[Insaanistan]

Yes, but all good people regardless of religion (given they did not know Islam was the true faith) goes to heaven. By which I mean, a Muslim can’t just say, “In that case, I’ll just be a good Christian! Now I can eat pork and drink beer and go to a night club and don’t have to pray five times a day!”

But a christian can say "I do not believe this Muhammed guy was truly a prophet, therefor his god is a false god and must be fought" ?

Yes. God won’t punish you for not knowing the truth. Muhammad had in-laws who were Jewish. He never forced them to become Muslim, only his wife did.

[C u b e d]

All due respect, if Muhammad and some other fellows of your religion's Sahabah got to Heaven, being a "good person" is very much not a requirement.

“Oh yeah, that Muhammad guy, I hate him. Freeing slaves, not lying, fighting for women’s rights, anti-racist. I mean, who does that? Ugh.”
How is Muhammad pbuh a bad person. History shows he was quite the opposite.

wasn't he a paedo?

[North German Realm]

All due respect, if Muhammad and some other fellows of your religion's Sahabah got to Heaven, being a "good person" is very much not a requirement.

“Oh yeah, that Muhammad guy, I hate him. Freeing slaves, not lying, fighting for women’s rights, anti-racist. I mean, who does that? Ugh.”
How is Muhammad pbuh a bad person. History shows he was quite the opposite.

The nice thing about history is, you can read it. Muhammad created the Arab Slave Trade. Slavery existed at his time, sure, but he nearly single-handedly made it into the primary mode of income for Arabs, something that Muslims kept up after him until they met the business end of English and French cannons in the 19th and 20th centuries.

"Never lying" is such a bullshit claim I don't even need to respond to. As is "anti-racist", given he's the founder of a religion that literally considers everyone not Arab as "incomplete". And given he was the person who took away most of the pre-Islamic Womens' rights, I'm not sure where you got that idea from. Was it his tens of female sex slaves?

[North German Realm]

“Oh yeah, that Muhammad guy, I hate him. Freeing slaves, not lying, fighting for women’s rights, anti-racist. I mean, who does that? Ugh.”
How is Muhammad pbuh a bad person. History shows he was quite the opposite.

wasn't he a paedo?

Careful, that topic is... somewhat of a taboo here.

[C u b e d]

wasn't he a paedo?

Careful, that topic is... somewhat of a taboo here.

my bad

[Insaanistan]

“Oh yeah, that Muhammad guy, I hate him. Freeing slaves, not lying, fighting for women’s rights, anti-racist. I mean, who does that? Ugh.”
How is Muhammad pbuh a bad person. History shows he was quite the opposite.

wasn't he a paedo?

Yeah... no. While few Hadith say his wife was six, a lot more say she was in her late teens, twenties, or thirties.

[Insaanistan]

“Oh yeah, that Muhammad guy, I hate him. Freeing slaves, not lying, fighting for women’s rights, anti-racist. I mean, who does that? Ugh.”
How is Muhammad pbuh a bad person. History shows he was quite the opposite.

The nice thing about history is, you can read it. Muhammad created the Arab Slave Trade. Slavery existed at his time, sure, but he nearly single-handedly made it into the primary mode of income for Arabs, something that Muslims kept up after him until they met the business end of English and French cannons in the 19th and 20th centuries.

"Never lying" is such a bullshit claim I don't even need to respond to. As is "anti-racist", given he's the founder of a religion that literally considers everyone not Arab as "incomplete". And given he was the person who took away most of the pre-Islamic Womens' rights, I'm not sure where you got that idea from. Was it his tens of female sex slaves?

No, he did not create it. He actually freed all his slaves well before he became a prophet, and even adopted one. He didn’t like slavery, but never banned it. After him, while still evil, slavery changed. The Qur’ân makes it harder to own slaves and treat them the way they were usually treated, and gave rewards to people who freed slaves. And Muhammad never had sex-slaves. Of course, not everyone cared about doing that part of what Islam says.
Nowhere in Islam does it say non-Arabs are incomplete. All men and women are equal. And before Islam, women had very few rights. Islam liberated them. I can provide sources for all of this.
Make no mistake: I am not saying that no “Muslim” ever mistreated slaves. I know too well the Omani Slave Trade. I am not ignoring the concubines many Ottoman sultans have. I know there are “Muslims” who see women as inferior, and Arab “Muslims” who see non-Arabs as inferior. But that isn’t what Islam says, or what most Muslims believe. You need to make the distinction.

[Ankenland]

Case closed then, because the point of this debate is if religion is necessary or not.

Well, that's a stupid debate. It asks a question whose answer is trivial and is known to anyone with a good high school education, or anyone who can read about communism and religion.

That's economic reality for you, but this would be another whole topic.

It is actually the same topic, and I think that the reason that people keep repeating the same contradictory answers is that they do not understand what topic they are discussing.

I've explained this three times already. As a rational materialist actor, my health, happiness and well-being is improved by taking the money from your lost wallet when no one is looking. There is no reason not to do this. Any sad feeling I would feel for you would be less than the pleasure of spending your money.

But this is reliant on the validity of the 0 external cost argument.

Please describe the argument you think this relies on, and why this argument is invalid.

[Ankenland]

...

[Kowani]

To begin with, if it is an assumption, is because it is not proven - as is the case. Religions might propose an afterlife where externalizing costs are eliminated, except that they can not prove that such afterlife exists, hence they can not prove that eliminating external costs completely is possible, as you claim they do.

This is not my claim. I am stating that the afterlife hypothesis solves the problem of externalizing costs, not that religion has proven the afterlife hypothesis. I already stated that they have failed to prove the afterlife hypothesis, and in fact, dedicated the last four, long posts to providing a better argument for it.

This would be a great argument if the data supported it.

[Ankenland]

A link is not an argument.

[Saint Nicholas and the Hussars]

The best possible world is one where we all follow Catholic Social Teaching (CST).

However, that's a tall order. I think that the Catholic Church is a necessity for society. The absence of the church leads to alienation, depression, meaninglessness, and individualism. The church offers meaning and stability to it's members. I don't think it can be beat. The Catholic Church was here 1000 years ago and it's going to be here 1000 years from now. Nations rise and fall, people live, people pass, but the church remains. What an honor it is to be a saint.

Wait, so, non-catholics, let alone non-christians, have no meaning in their lives? They're alienated? They're all depressed? That sounds like a load of bull to me. People did just fine in those regards without your church before it even existed and continue to do so today. And what's bad about individualism? That... honestly sounds like the sort of controlling rhetoric a cultist would say.

For the first part, technically, yes. One day, everything we have done will be destroyed. Whilst it is nice that those build upon society to reach a higher level of gaining happiness, if they are not to believe in the lord, where will it all have gone? To waste, and them, not able to achieve eternal happiness after death. Second one, no, not really. Yet what’s its use if it will be gone? Individualism can be seen as simply “not true” in some cases. Generally, if we keep away from the hive mind yet have a balance of good discipline, we’ll be fine.

[Kowani]

A link is not an argument.

It's called a study, mate. Part of a thing called science. You know, having evidence to support your ideas and all.

[Panslav]

"Mankind's great mistake was to create God"

[Forsher]

For society at all? IMO, it seems like religion was a necessary development, but religion alone was insufficient. It's hard to tell, though. It may well have been the case that any culturally transmitted set of ideas could've have worked to preserve social continuity in the face of environmental and political shocks.

If we want to hold contemporary non-American Anglosphere society as an ideal, religion was necessary but the gradual irrelevance of religion was more necessary. It might be fairer to say that tension between state and religious organisation was necessary and the gradual victory of the state the critical feature of that tension.

If we want to hold some other kind of society as an ideal our answer will change. For example, if we want to hold American society as an ideal... religion is very clearly necessary.

OP's question is too vague to formulate an answer.

[Dogmeat]

A "good christian". would see Allah as a perversion of his deity and oppose muslims. That seems counterproductive.

People who have never heard of Islam, never had a chance to convert to Islam, or who have been told false things about Islam are all included under the category of people who will go to heaven if they are good.

If that is the case, then the best thing we could do is tell everyone false things about Islam.

That way everyone gets to go to heaven if they're good.

[Region of Dwipantara]

Yes, but all good people regardless of religion (given they did not know Islam was the true faith) goes to heaven. By which I mean, a Muslim can’t just say, “In that case, I’ll just be a good Christian! Now I can eat pork and drink beer and go to a night club and don’t have to pray five times a day!”

All due respect, if Muhammad and some other fellows of your religion's Sahabah got to Heaven, being a "good person" is very much not a requirement.

*Ahem*

Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Quran 33:26-27:

We have already noted that when the Confederates came and camped outside Al-Madinah, Banu Qurayzah broke the covenant that existed between them and the Messenger of Allah . This happened by the agency of Huyay bin Akhtab An-Nadari, may Allah curse him, who entered their stronghold and would not leave their leader, Ka`b bin Asad, alone until he agreed to break the covenant. Among the things that he said to him was, "Woe to you! This is the opportunity for glory. The Quraysh and their company of men from various tribes, and the Ghatafan and their followers, have come to you, and they will stay here until they eliminate Muhammad and his companions.'' Ka`b said to him, "No, by Allah, this is the opportunity for humiliation. Woe to you, O Huyay, you are a bad omen. Leave us alone.'' But Huyay kept trying to persuade him until he agreed to his request. He laid down the condition that if the Confederates went away without doing anything, he ﴿Huyay﴾ would join them in their stronghold and would share their fate. When Banu Qurayzah broke their covenant and news of this reached the Messenger of Allah , he and the Muslims were very distressed by that. When Allah helped him by suppressing his enemy and driving them back disappointed and lost, having gained nothing, the Messenger of Allah returned to Al-Madinah in triumph and the people put down their weapons. While the Messenger of Allah was washing off the dust of battle in the house of Umm Salamah, may Allah be pleased with her, Jibril, upon him be peace, came to him wearing a turban of brocade, riding on a mule on which was a cloth of silk brocade. He said, "Have you put down your weapons, O Messenger of Allah'' He said, "Yes.'' He said, "But the angels have not put down their weapons. I have just now come back from pursuing the people.'' Then he said: "Allah, may He be blessed and exalted, commands you to get up and go to Banu Qurayzah.'' According to another report, "What a fighter you are! Have you put down your weapons'' He said, "Yes.'' He said, "But we have not put down our weapons yet, get up and go to these people.'' He said: "Where'' He said, "Banu Qurayzah, for Allah has commanded me to shake them.'' So the Messenger of Allah got up immediately, and commanded the people to march towards Banu Qurayzah, who were a few miles from Al-Madinah. This was after Salat Az-Zuhr. He said, (No one among you should pray `Asr except at Banu Qurayzah.) So, the people set out, and the time for the prayer came while they were still on the road. Some of them prayed on the road, saying, "The Messenger of Allah only wanted to make us march quickly.'' Others said, "We will not pray it until we reach Banu Qurayzah.'' Neither of the two groups were rebuked for what they did. The Messenger of Allah followed them. He left Ibn Umm Maktum, may Allah be pleased with him, in charge of Al-Madinah, and he had given the flag to `Ali bin Abi Talib, may Allah be pleased with him. Then the Messenger of Allah went to them (Banu Qurayzah) laying siege to them for twenty-five days. When this had gone on for too long, they agreed to accept the judgement of Sa`d bin Mu`adh, the leader of `Aws because they had been their allies during the Jahiliyyah, so they thought that he would treat them kindly as `Abdullah bin Ubayy bin Salul had done for his allies of Banu Qaynuqa` when he had asked the Messenger of Allah to set them free. So, these people thought that Sa`d would do the same for them as Ibn Ubayy had done for those people. They did not know that Sa`d had been struck by an arrow in his medial arm vein during the campaign of Al-Khandaq. The Messenger of Allah had had his vein cauterized and had brought him to stay in a tent in the Masjid so that he could keep a close eye on him. One of the things that Sa`d, may Allah be pleased with him, said in his supplication was, "O Allah, if there is still anything that has to do with the war against Quraysh, then keep me alive for it, and if You decree that the war between us and them is over, then let the bleeding be renewed, but do not let me die until I get my satisfaction with regard to Banu Qurayzah.'' Allah answered his prayer and decreed that they would agree to be referred to him for judgement, and this was their own free choice. When this happened, the Messenger of Allah called him to come from Al-Madinah to pass judgement on them. When he arrived, riding on a donkey that had been specially equipped for him to ride, some of the `Aws began to urge him not to be too harsh, saying, "O Sa`d, they are your clients so be kind to them, trying to soften his heart.'' But he kept quiet and did not answer them. When they persisted in their request, he said, "Now it is time for Sa`d to make sure that no rebuke or censure will divert him from the path of Allah.'' Then they knew that he would not let them live. When he reached the tent where the Messenger of Allah was, the Messenger of Allah said: (Stand up for your leader.) So the Muslims stood up for him, and welcomed him with honor and respect as befitted his status and so that his judgement would have more impact. When he sat down, the Messenger of Allah said: (These people) -- and he pointed to them -- (have agreed to accept your judgement, so pass judgement on them as you wish.) Sa`d, may Allah be pleased with him, said: "My judgement will be carried out'' The Messenger of Allah said: "Yes.'' He said, "And it will be carried out on those who are in this tent'' He said, "Yes.'' He said, "And on those who are on this side'' -- and he pointed towards the side where the Messenger of Allah was, but he did not look directly at the Messenger of Allah out of respect for him. The Messenger of Allah said to him: "Yes.'' So Sa`d, may Allah be pleased with him, said: "My judgement is that their fighters should be killed and their children and wealth should be seized.'' The Messenger of Allah said: (You have judged according to the ruling of the Sovereign.) Then the Messenger of Allah commanded that ditches should be dug, so they were dug in the earth, and they were brought tied by their shoulders, and were beheaded. There were between seven hundred and eight hundred of them. The children who had not yet reached adolescence and the women were taken prisoner, and their wealth was seized. All of this is stated both briefly and in detail, with evidence and Hadiths, in the book of Sirah which we have written, praise and blessings be to Allah. Allah said: (And those who backed them, Allah brought them down) means, those who helped and supported them in their war against the Messenger of Allah. (of the People of the Scripture) means, Banu Qurayzah, who were Jews from one of the tribes of Israel. Their forefathers had settled in the Hijaz long ago, seeking to follow the Unlettered Prophet of whom they read in the Tawrah and Injil. (then when there came to them that which they had recognized, they disbelieved in it) (2:89). May the curse of Allah be upon them. (from their forts) means, from their strongholds. This was the view of Mujahid, `Ikrimah, `Ata', Qatadah, As-Suddi and others of the Salaf. (and cast terror into their hearts;) means fear, because they had supported the idolators in their war against the Messenger of Allah and the one who knows is not like the one who does not know. They had terrified the Muslims and intended to kill them so as to gain earthly power, but their plans backfired; the idolators ran away and the believers were victorious while the disbelievers were losers; where they had aimed for glory, they were humiliated. They wanted to eradicate the Muslims but they were themselves eradicated. In addition to all this, they are doomed in the Hereafter, so by all acounts they are counted as losers. Allah says: (a group you killed, and a group you made captives.) Those who were killed were their warriors, and the prisoners were their children and women. Imam Ahmad recorded that `Atiyah Al-Qurazi said, "I was shown to the Prophet on the day of Qurayzah, because they were not sure about me. The Prophet told them to look at me to see whether I had grown any body hair yet. They looked and saw that I had not grown any body hair, so they let me go and I was put with the other prisoners.'' This was also recorded by the Sunan compilers, and At-Tirmidhi said it is Hasan Sahih.'' An-Nasa'i also recorded something similar from `Atiyah. (And He caused you to inherit their lands, and their houses, and their riches,) means, `He gave these things to you after you killed them.' (and a land which you had not trodden.) It was said that this was Khaybar, or that it was the lands of the Persians and Romans. Ibn Jarir said, "It could be that all of these are referred to (And Allah is able to do all things.)''

Some interesting thing to notice
1. The lowest age of the men who are killed. 15? 14? 13? 12? Those who have gone into puberty? Islam's definition of "adulthood" is very much contested.

2. The fate of those who are not killed, and their property.

3. The tone

4. The Geneva convention

[Region of Dwipantara]

"Mankind's great mistake was to create God"

It's super beneficial for some time, though. And it's not the belief in god that brings the most damage, it's the red tape that chained society from progress and must be deregulated.

[Insaanistan]

All due respect, if Muhammad and some other fellows of your religion's Sahabah got to Heaven, being a "good person" is very much not a requirement.

*Ahem*

Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Quran 33:26-27:

We have already noted that when the Confederates came and camped outside Al-Madinah, Banu Qurayzah broke the covenant that existed between them and the Messenger of Allah . This happened by the agency of Huyay bin Akhtab An-Nadari, may Allah curse him, who entered their stronghold and would not leave their leader, Ka`b bin Asad, alone until he agreed to break the covenant. Among the things that he said to him was, "Woe to you! This is the opportunity for glory. The Quraysh and their company of men from various tribes, and the Ghatafan and their followers, have come to you, and they will stay here until they eliminate Muhammad and his companions.'' Ka`b said to him, "No, by Allah, this is the opportunity for humiliation. Woe to you, O Huyay, you are a bad omen. Leave us alone.'' But Huyay kept trying to persuade him until he agreed to his request. He laid down the condition that if the Confederates went away without doing anything, he ﴿Huyay﴾ would join them in their stronghold and would share their fate. When Banu Qurayzah broke their covenant and news of this reached the Messenger of Allah , he and the Muslims were very distressed by that. When Allah helped him by suppressing his enemy and driving them back disappointed and lost, having gained nothing, the Messenger of Allah returned to Al-Madinah in triumph and the people put down their weapons. While the Messenger of Allah was washing off the dust of battle in the house of Umm Salamah, may Allah be pleased with her, Jibril, upon him be peace, came to him wearing a turban of brocade, riding on a mule on which was a cloth of silk brocade. He said, "Have you put down your weapons, O Messenger of Allah'' He said, "Yes.'' He said, "But the angels have not put down their weapons. I have just now come back from pursuing the people.'' Then he said: "Allah, may He be blessed and exalted, commands you to get up and go to Banu Qurayzah.'' According to another report, "What a fighter you are! Have you put down your weapons'' He said, "Yes.'' He said, "But we have not put down our weapons yet, get up and go to these people.'' He said: "Where'' He said, "Banu Qurayzah, for Allah has commanded me to shake them.'' So the Messenger of Allah got up immediately, and commanded the people to march towards Banu Qurayzah, who were a few miles from Al-Madinah. This was after Salat Az-Zuhr. He said, (No one among you should pray `Asr except at Banu Qurayzah.) So, the people set out, and the time for the prayer came while they were still on the road. Some of them prayed on the road, saying, "The Messenger of Allah only wanted to make us march quickly.'' Others said, "We will not pray it until we reach Banu Qurayzah.'' Neither of the two groups were rebuked for what they did. The Messenger of Allah followed them. He left Ibn Umm Maktum, may Allah be pleased with him, in charge of Al-Madinah, and he had given the flag to `Ali bin Abi Talib, may Allah be pleased with him. Then the Messenger of Allah went to them (Banu Qurayzah) laying siege to them for twenty-five days. When this had gone on for too long, they agreed to accept the judgement of Sa`d bin Mu`adh, the leader of `Aws because they had been their allies during the Jahiliyyah, so they thought that he would treat them kindly as `Abdullah bin Ubayy bin Salul had done for his allies of Banu Qaynuqa` when he had asked the Messenger of Allah to set them free. So, these people thought that Sa`d would do the same for them as Ibn Ubayy had done for those people. They did not know that Sa`d had been struck by an arrow in his medial arm vein during the campaign of Al-Khandaq. The Messenger of Allah had had his vein cauterized and had brought him to stay in a tent in the Masjid so that he could keep a close eye on him. One of the things that Sa`d, may Allah be pleased with him, said in his supplication was, "O Allah, if there is still anything that has to do with the war against Quraysh, then keep me alive for it, and if You decree that the war between us and them is over, then let the bleeding be renewed, but do not let me die until I get my satisfaction with regard to Banu Qurayzah.'' Allah answered his prayer and decreed that they would agree to be referred to him for judgement, and this was their own free choice. When this happened, the Messenger of Allah called him to come from Al-Madinah to pass judgement on them. When he arrived, riding on a donkey that had been specially equipped for him to ride, some of the `Aws began to urge him not to be too harsh, saying, "O Sa`d, they are your clients so be kind to them, trying to soften his heart.'' But he kept quiet and did not answer them. When they persisted in their request, he said, "Now it is time for Sa`d to make sure that no rebuke or censure will divert him from the path of Allah.'' Then they knew that he would not let them live. When he reached the tent where the Messenger of Allah was, the Messenger of Allah said: (Stand up for your leader.) So the Muslims stood up for him, and welcomed him with honor and respect as befitted his status and so that his judgement would have more impact. When he sat down, the Messenger of Allah said: (These people) -- and he pointed to them -- (have agreed to accept your judgement, so pass judgement on them as you wish.) Sa`d, may Allah be pleased with him, said: "My judgement will be carried out'' The Messenger of Allah said: "Yes.'' He said, "And it will be carried out on those who are in this tent'' He said, "Yes.'' He said, "And on those who are on this side'' -- and he pointed towards the side where the Messenger of Allah was, but he did not look directly at the Messenger of Allah out of respect for him. The Messenger of Allah said to him: "Yes.'' So Sa`d, may Allah be pleased with him, said: "My judgement is that their fighters should be killed and their children and wealth should be seized.'' The Messenger of Allah said: (You have judged according to the ruling of the Sovereign.) Then the Messenger of Allah commanded that ditches should be dug, so they were dug in the earth, and they were brought tied by their shoulders, and were beheaded. There were between seven hundred and eight hundred of them. The children who had not yet reached adolescence and the women were taken prisoner, and their wealth was seized. All of this is stated both briefly and in detail, with evidence and Hadiths, in the book of Sirah which we have written, praise and blessings be to Allah. Allah said: (And those who backed them, Allah brought them down) means, those who helped and supported them in their war against the Messenger of Allah. (of the People of the Scripture) means, Banu Qurayzah, who were Jews from one of the tribes of Israel. Their forefathers had settled in the Hijaz long ago, seeking to follow the Unlettered Prophet of whom they read in the Tawrah and Injil. (then when there came to them that which they had recognized, they disbelieved in it) (2:89). May the curse of Allah be upon them. (from their forts) means, from their strongholds. This was the view of Mujahid, `Ikrimah, `Ata', Qatadah, As-Suddi and others of the Salaf. (and cast terror into their hearts;) means fear, because they had supported the idolators in their war against the Messenger of Allah and the one who knows is not like the one who does not know. They had terrified the Muslims and intended to kill them so as to gain earthly power, but their plans backfired; the idolators ran away and the believers were victorious while the disbelievers were losers; where they had aimed for glory, they were humiliated. They wanted to eradicate the Muslims but they were themselves eradicated. In addition to all this, they are doomed in the Hereafter, so by all acounts they are counted as losers. Allah says: (a group you killed, and a group you made captives.) Those who were killed were their warriors, and the prisoners were their children and women. Imam Ahmad recorded that `Atiyah Al-Qurazi said, "I was shown to the Prophet on the day of Qurayzah, because they were not sure about me. The Prophet told them to look at me to see whether I had grown any body hair yet. They looked and saw that I had not grown any body hair, so they let me go and I was put with the other prisoners.'' This was also recorded by the Sunan compilers, and At-Tirmidhi said it is Hasan Sahih.'' An-Nasa'i also recorded something similar from `Atiyah. (And He caused you to inherit their lands, and their houses, and their riches,) means, `He gave these things to you after you killed them.' (and a land which you had not trodden.) It was said that this was Khaybar, or that it was the lands of the Persians and Romans. Ibn Jarir said, "It could be that all of these are referred to (And Allah is able to do all things.)''

Some interesting thing to notice
1. The lowest age of the men who are killed. 15? 14? 13? 12? Those who have gone into puberty? Islam's definition of "adulthood" is very much contested.

2. The fate of those who are not killed, and their property.

3. The tone

4. The Geneva convention

Banu Qurayza: *Make treaty*
Muslims:*Go into battle with people who tried to kill them all*
Banu Qurayza: *Betray treaty and try to start insurrection*
Muslims:*Win anyway*
Muslims*Kill warrior-aged men who almost 100% fought them and one woman who killed a Muslim soldier*
Muslims: *Have prisoners of war, who according to Islamic practices, are not shackled, are given the same amount as food as Muslims, treated humanely, and set free if they reach ten Muslims to read*
Islamophobes: Oh yeah, the Muslims are so inhumane.

[Insaanistan]

"Mankind's great mistake was to create God"

It's super beneficial for some time, though. And it's not the belief in god that brings the most damage, it's the red tape that chained society from progress and must be deregulated.

It is the manipulation of God’s religion that is dangerous, not the religion itself.

[Farnhamia]

The topic is not the merits or faults of Islam or Muhammed, it's whether religion is necessary for society. Let's stick to that, shall we? I do understand that can be difficult, sometimes, but we can try.

[Ankenland]

It's called a study, mate. Part of a thing called science. You know, having evidence to support your ideas and all.

An essay written by one sociology PhD is not science, it is an essay. You can actually search the term "essay" in that document.

This essay cites mostly low-quality evidence to make some argument about the attitudes and social outcomes of atheists.

Did I make any sociological argument about the attitudes and social outcomes of atheists, or did I make a philosophical argument about the moral rationalities of atheism and theism?

Do you even understand the difference?

[Auristania]

The nice thing about history is, you can read it. Muhammad created the Arab Slave Trade. Slavery existed at his time, sure, but he nearly single-handedly made it into the primary mode of income for Arabs, something that Muslims kept up after him until they met the business end of English and French cannons in the 19th and 20th centuries.

"Never lying" is such a bullshit claim I don't even need to respond to. As is "anti-racist", given he's the founder of a religion that literally considers everyone not Arab as "incomplete". And given he was the person who took away most of the pre-Islamic Womens' rights, I'm not sure where you got that idea from. Was it his tens of female sex slaves?

No, he did not create it. He actually freed all his slaves well before he became a prophet, and even adopted one. He didn’t like slavery, but never banned it. After him, while still evil, slavery changed. The Qur’ân makes it harder to own slaves and treat them the way they were usually treated, and gave rewards to people who freed slaves. And Muhammad never had sex-slaves. Of course, not everyone cared about doing that part of what Islam says.
Nowhere in Islam does it say non-Arabs are incomplete. All men and women are equal. And before Islam, women had very few rights. Islam liberated them. I can provide sources for all of this.
Make no mistake: I am not saying that no “Muslim” ever mistreated slaves. I know too well the Omani Slave Trade. I am not ignoring the concubines many Ottoman sultans have. I know there are “Muslims” who see women as inferior, and Arab “Muslims” who see non-Arabs as inferior. But that isn’t what Islam says, or what most Muslims believe. You need to make the distinction.

No True Scotsman.

Any Muslim who does Evil is defined as NOT a true Muslim. That is very conweient.

[Auristania]

whether religion is necessary for society

Plato's philosopher Kings and Sir Thomas Moore.

We all know that religion is nonsense.
And we all know that Religion makes the Peasants OBEY.