I had missed this, but what you say is true. There are key points in which we disagree with nazism, and we vehemently disagree with those points, but we certainly couldn't disagree with everything.

"I am in favor of improving the human race. That does not mean I am a Nazi. That's all I had in mind when I brought in Hitler and his overcoat. What a strange tangle that remark got me into! And if I didn't have an overcoat I would probably use Spanish moss, if there was any at hand. Scouts learn to build shelters from materials likely to be avalibale in the woods. That's taking responsibility for your own welfare and the welfare of others. Seems like a good idea to me."

It would seem to be a good idea. I fail to see how your statement by itself takes into account the welfare of others though.

"I think that Ann Coulter's remark, "Conservatives believe in God. Liberals believe they are God", illustrates one of the dangers of religious belief. To the extent that a religious person believes that God is responsible for some undesirable state of affairs, to that extent he will be unlikely to seek remedies himself. I think the history of science bears this out. Religion has frequently opposed scientific investigation, as for example in opposing the dissection of human bodies."

I think you pick and choose from a pile of positive and negative actions by religious people/institutions, and you only seem to pick out the negatives. History of science is a mixed bag when it comes to religious peoples and institutions - you can point to the RCC opposing the dissection of bodies, but I can point to the Muslims who furthered medicinal science throughout Arabia and Africa whilst the Europeans wallowed.

"Somehow you have misunderstood me. I don't see exactly how this happened. Let me just state my position. I believe in taking responsibility for my own welfare and happiness. I also believe in helping others achieve their welfare and happiness. Do you see any fundamental contradiction here?"

I think the point I was making was that when you first stated what you would if it were to rain on you was to get a rain coat or shelter. Later on, you said that it is our responsibility to maintain the welfare of humanity. I was pointing out that while you may feel it is our responsibility to maintain the welfare of humanity, your reaction to said rain was self-motivated initially. In other words, your solution to the problem of rain was an individual solution while your creed was a societal solution. A case in point of practicing what you preach / demonstrating what you truly believe.

"In my position statement on cloning and stem cell research I suggest something I call "noetic value". This refers to the kind of extra value living things have over non-living things, and the kind of extra value highly intelligent living things have over not-so-intelligent living things, and the extra value conscious beings have over less aware beings. The ethical problems involved in abortion also are present in questions of the death penalty and euthanasia, as you correctly point out. As much as I would like to I can't create a perfectly consistent and invulnerable theory of how best to bring about a perfect world in one post on The Truth Tree! But we are all working on it, and I find that very encouraging!"

Although I agree about the sentient value over non-sentient value, I will have to disagree with you about intelligent over less intelligent organisms. This is inherently biased since you are one of the most intelligent organisms, and a bear would most certainly disagree with you. It also assumes that factual knowledge is greater than other forms of knowledge - you may be more intelligent in many ways, but in kinetic knowledge, the bear most likely wins.

To clarify the "kinetic knowledge" phrase, think about it this way: how is it that a squirrel rarely missed a branch, but you would be hard pressed to try leaping from one tree to another even if you were the same size as the squirrel.

"I most certainly do oppose shooting a bear under most conditions. There are undoubtedly times when I would favor shooting a bear, but in general I don't approve of shooting bears."

That's good to know. But when resources dictate that it's you or the bear, you'll shoot the bear. And I wonder when resources dictate that it's you or the elderly, will you shoot the elderly?

A good response, but you failed to touch upon the more important points I made. These are:

1) The false assumption that all religious people must believe it God's responsiblity to provide their medical needs and comforts.

2) Why human life is considered "sacred."