Religion has a practical role to play in a post-modern society.

Alright. I shall thank my opponent for accepting the debatee, and swear at debate.org for giving e eighty-something e-mails in a period of two days. I am annoyed now... -_-. Also, i apologise for the formatting, but I was copying and pasting from notes I have from other word documents, and it seemed to not have translated well... (please note the copy-and-pasting was from original works, none of which available on the internet except a couple odd sentences and those where citations are given). Also, the first thousand characters were simply to stop arguments under the category of "we're not in a postmodern society". There are different timeframes of it occurring, but they are all stating we currently live in one. With point a, any of the following 3 reasons are enough to justify my primary point, but I shall reaffirm some points made by my opposition that were criticising my argument, before addressing his new argument, which seems to solely be based on "faith". This claim also makes the assumption that faith is linked directly and exclusively to religion. But the first point you made was about art and culture. You state it is the major contributor to how we got to this society today, and you're right. To say that we could only have advanced with religion, i would disagree. But this is not relevant. Religion is no longer required to culturally advance in post-modern society. "http://www.democraticunderground.com... poll of 500 arts figures ranked French surrealist Marcel Duchamp's 1917 piece "Fountain" - an ordinary white, porcelain urinal - more influential than Pablo Picasso's "Les Demoiselles d'Avignon," Andy Warhol's screen prints of Marilyn Monroe and "Guernica," Picasso's searing depiction of the devastation of war. This does not even have a meaning! It was used as an attack on dada types of art, specifically because of its "readymadeness". Even when we look at the others, Demoisellas was based around atheism in some interpretations (Anatomy of a Masterpiece) or sexual disease (http://en.wikipedia.org...'Avignon#Rubin.2C_Seckel.2C_Cousins, Someone wrote some information up about it). Guernica was influenced by the horrors of the Spanish Revolution in the 20th century, and other works are similarly unlinked to religion. Yes, in the past, religion probably held sway over a lot of matters, but the positive or negative influence of religion in this topic is not currently the discussion.The practical roles of a post-modern society is dominated by economic issues. I have gave a solid argument proving my point, and the framework remains unchallenged. I shall take this as there not being a flaw in the line of reasoning, but the basis of which it starts on, that is, that a postmodern society is dominated by a need to make money. Modern society is extremely decentralised, where corporations run almost everything, from selling top hats to getting a bootshine. The fact remains that religion has to adapt to the current world, and that a government still heeds to its unnecessary demands is unfair. You say that "you... see the hope and faith radiating off of them." I used to go to church, and it is the same glow people get, in my opinion, after I finish my day of airsoft, except we get a physical kick out of it (and I pay less!). And relative opinion on the matter is not something that I'll take into much consideration, when the euphoria can be got from many activities, and even non-religions such as buddhism (bearing in mind a religion includes a deity of some description). Is it necessary to remove religion? No. Not all at once, anyway. Go the french égalitarianistic route, and bring in modern values to communities. Also, please do not bring up american-specific values/laws, unless it is to show a larger picture, bearing in mind I am english, and I could start stating the habeas corpus act constantly, and it'd be unfair. :PCould the non-believer every done the countless art you listed? No. Could the countless non-occurring scientific achievements occurred, or occurred quicker? Not with religion, No. Could better governments form (see divine right of kings), or occurred quicker? Ignoring Rev. France, no. Does art occur without religion at the same pace though? Yes. Does scientific growth, however? No. If you are an atheist, I find it strange that you have not noticed that atheism is the single group that is hated by all religions. http://atheism.about.com... showing a citation, with citations inside it. But this is irrelevant. It's not that all religions hate different groups, its that they all hate. With liberal, tolerant views that stem from irreligious belief, we stop hating different groups, not start. You state that "Anyone with a heart and brain will pull over and make sure he is ok". This backs up the lack of need for religion to dictate morals. I'd like to bring up the Good Samaritan Experiment . http://faculty.babson.edu.... The study concluded that speaking in a seminary about religion caused no difference, while a small change was found when the talk was loosely related to helping rather than a specific task. I'll point to the quotation "There was no correlation between "religious types" and helping behavior". Finally, I shall conclude with two remarks; firstly, can you summarise making your premises obvious? Me, being a little slow, had to reread your writing a couple of times before I could note the premises, and I don't want to miss any out. Secondly, the socio-economic benefit of religion is a negative, my first premise, the moral benefits are non-existent, by second premise, and the cultural aspect is no longer relevant, my first rebuttal, and the faith aspect is simply a euphoria from an activity based from psychological feeling, my second rebuttal. Thank you for responding, and I await the 2nd rebuttal stage.