If you have no shelter nor overcoat, then is it truly your responsibility? You assume tools when tools are likely but not guaranteed.

"Perhaps there could be a person who thought that it was God's responsibility to take care of me and that for me to think that it was my responsibility to wear an overcoat or come in out of the rain is a sign of arrogance."

These people do exist and must be constantly reminded by the natural world why it was that humans were given brains (assuming God).

"Take Ann Coulter's position and move it from politics to medicine. According to her, if I am sick I should just pray to God. I shouldn't consult a physicion who is one of those liberals who thinks it is possible to take responsibility in health matters. He is "playing God" to practice medicine."

This assumes that all people who believe in God must believe that God is responsible for the upkeep of all physical needs and comforts. Of course, this is a false assumption.

"So whose responsibility is the welfare and life opportunities of human beings? Should we leave these matters strictly up to God? I firmly believe that our welfare is our responsibility and that we should take this responsibility very seriously and not leave it up to God."

You have now changed positions. Originally you stated that keeping yourself dry and warm is your responsibility. Now you are stating that keeping all people dry and warm is all people's responsibility. If you truly believed this, you would not have been concerned with keeping yourself dry and warm, as did the Hitler and the Nazis, but you would instead have stated your situation as being one of finding someone else who has no means of keeping dry and warm and assisting said person.

"And to DWA, who said I was placing too much emphasis on nurture over nature, I would say that where humans are concerned nurture is clearly more important than it is for bears. Language is a clear advantage, but no one is born with language. We all have to learn it. Learning is nurture. Bears can't learn language, and its advantages are a complete mystery to them!"

Says the human. Bears do learn language, just not as sophisticated and efficient as yourself. However, I have yet to see a bear that when introduced to a new bear couldn't understand what the other bear tried to convey to him. In this way, perhaps bears have the upper paw?

"He wants to leave the question of life or death of an embryo up to God. In the natural course of events a considerable number of embryos are aborted due to "natural causes". Maybe Boris thinks that God decides those issues and that we should leave it up to him."

If this is not the case, then why should human life be considered sacred? The elderly and retired contribute progressively less as they get older and as such, I see no reason why clear thinking people in an atheistic world would oppose terminating the life of the very old. At some point, it even becomes difficult for them to communicate, putting them around the level of the bear...

... and surely you wouldn't oppose shooting a bear.