Re: Debunk All Religiosity Equally (D.A.R.E.)

From: Samantha Atkins (
Date: Sat Jul 07 2001 - 20:06:18 MDT

Reason wrote:
> --> Samantha Atkins
> > > From: "Reason" <>
> > > > So without removing a, b, c, you're never going to be able to
> > get rid of
> > > > religiosity of some form.
> > >
> > > You may be right. Getting rid of religiosity (I.E., the most
> > regressive force
> > > now operating in society) may require more drastic measures.
> >
> > Religious stuff is not the most regressive force. Thinking you
> > have the truth corralled and other people are so out to lunch
> > their truths need to be gotten rid of IS the most regressive
> > force operating in society.
> At what point does altruism overweigh respect for other people's perception
> of reality? It's an interesting question, and one that seems to lurk deep
> within the problem set for setting up a benevolant anarchy, or even a
> functional but more mainstream libertarian society.

One problem is that one needs a more airtight truth and
perception of truth than others before the question even comes
up. I am not a cultural relativist. I do believe there are
more and less accurate views of the way it really is. But in
most cases we are talking about in DARE threads, altruism is not
the motivation in not only rejecting but forcefully opposing
someone else's beliefs.

> If someone believes that they can fly without assistance, is it right and
> proper to
> a) leave them to kill themselves with their "truth" -- thus allowing
> evolutionary pressures to produce a fitter society, or
> b) force your "truth" on them, thus keeping them alive. With all the
> consequences that stem from that.
> I don't think that this is such an irrelevant question; large sections of
> today's society hold "truths" that contradict basic physics. Is it moral,
> ethical, desirable to leave them to these "truths" or does altruism or
> selfishness win out?

More aptly, if someone believes their "soul" survives physical
death anyway is it right and proper to force them to be
cryonically stored as they near death? Does it become any more
or less right if the vast majority believe that cryonics is the
way to go and that anything less is memetically inspired
suicide? Or, is it proper to insulate children from the
mystical/religious beliefs of their parents "for their own
good"? Who exactly decides what are the proper or at least best
beliefs and practices? How and to what degree are these
decisions enforced?

I think freedom should win. But it would be really good to have
backups available so people could survive their own stupidity
and take another shot.

- samantha

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:39:42 MDT