TheFallibleFiend: you said "We innately believe that what we value has some significance external to us - that it's fixed, and understandable, and that our formulaic principles must always stay in tact. This is because we like to know...And when we don't know, we make stuff up."

and "People want to have ready-made "knowledge" and ready-made ethics that could hypothetically be encoded in an expert system. "What should I do in this situation?" Then the expert system asks you a whole bunch of questions and spits out a defensible answer."

These are generalisations, as I'm sure you are aware. Does it apply to you, for example?

and "But I don't believe human ethics is that simple. We might say, "Always this" or "Always that," but we should realize - consciously - that those are heuristics."

My point exactly. That's what I've been trying to extract from this!

Whilst I go along with the idea that imposing your religious beliefs (or lack thereof) on others can be counterproductive, situations arise in which we acknowledge the need to do so. Put another way, in general I agree with Revlgking's comment: "It is wrong for anyone with strong beliefs and opinions to impose them, dogmatically, on others" - but in many particalar instances, and dependent upon our personal evaluation, it doesn't apply. There's a sliding "ethical" scale in operation.

Ellis, you said: "I do not believe in taking another's life under any circumstances." and "If the beliefs include human sacrifice then I would try to change them as I think that none of us has the right to kill someone else."

Thank you, Ellis - a straight answer to a straight question. A hypothetical circumstance in which you would impose your beliefs on others if at all possible.

"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler