Social Darwinism

[Trigshot]

Please advise your friend to understand that the acceptance of evolution does not constitute the removal of morals. Moral behaviors come from many sources, but my favorite by far is that they are derived from the equal need of society, basically the golden rule on steroids. If you choose to kill me, you in turn sacrifice your own right to live. If you choose to behave cruelly, you will be forced to suffer the same cruelties.

This means that ensuring the survival of your genes should only constitute finding a suitable mate with good genes, and reproduce as often as possible. however, there is a drawback to this. Given the expenses of a child's existence, we are generally forced to have only a few children, lest we lose our money, our means of survival.

While eliminating the competition would be a way to ensure the survival of your genes, it would also probably constitute something along the lines of extreme mass genocide. This is why such behaviors are generally discarded for practical solutions for your objective.

 

[PuppetXeno]

Too bad the all-knowing creator of the universe didn't make His single message to mankind a little easier to understand...

Well that should kinda give away that this all knowing creator of the universe isn't really all knowing, now is it? *does not compute*

So what is this god anyway - have him describe god without circular dead-stops - "god is god, god is creator" doesn't mean anything. What is creator? How and why? Drive him back away from the evolution part, as long as he is still caught up with believing in something that has no meaning, he can keep invoking the most outrageous arguments on the fly, he is backed up by the meaninglessness of what he believes in, in the first place. So his arguments need not make sense to make sense to him.

 

[GoodKat]

Time for another update! From him:

As far as I'm concerned, all translations are just that. The work of God is written in Greek and Hebrew. They writings themselves may be infalable but the people translating them most certainly are not.

It makes things complicated on occasions, but I find this is rare and does not usually concern things of importance.

In this example it is hardly going to affect my salvation or ministry massively if Abraham did or didn't know God as Jehovah.

He made the important stuff easy enough.

I've sinned
Sinners go to hell
If I believe on Jesus He takes the punishment I should have had.

That is unambigous, even a child can grasp it. There is plenty of time in my life to concern myself with subtle nuances.

And

"women shouldn't speak in church"
That was in a letter to a church, obviously they had a problem with women in the back having a natter. If it was men who were the problem that verse would read "men of the church be silent".
If you're talking about the verse saying women shouldn't teach men, why is that so crazy?

lust=fornication
The gap inbetween is merely the fear of getting caught.

anger=murder
Likewise

me being sinful because of Adam
Well no one every had to teach you to lie, cheaat and steal but the god money says that you've probably done all these things at some point in your life. Sounds like a perfectly good explanation.

"not all of His teachings were so wise(turn the other cheek, forgive 70x7, ect.)"
lol, do tell why you consider these provisions inadequate?

"He was winging it"
Talented man for someone winging it.

"Which is why its good to have that body made up of many diverse people looking for holes in each others' ideas, it kills off bias."
lol, very amusing, so this DIVERSE community is made up exclusively of... scienctists... not that they are all going to have common goals? Besides, some scienctists who suggest things that are unpopular are often expelled (probably not so much in the US but unfortunately this occurs in my own beloved country).

"In my discussions there are no enemies, just two acquaintances searching for truth. As for your misconceptions, did you read the wikipedia articles?"
I confess no. I appreciate they will take some time fr me t read and digest which is why I shall have to take my time before further discussing that area.

My replies:

"He made the important stuff easy enough."
Important things like "can a person lose their salvation?" and "was the Genesis creation story literal?" that denominations still argue over today?

"In this example it is hardly going to affect my salvation or ministry massively if Abraham did or didn't know God as Jehovah."
Oh I think it could, all of a sudden you couldn't refer to the Bible as infallible, and thus you could no longer appeal to its authority on any matter.

"That is unambiguous, even a child can grasp it."
Yes I know that from experience, I suffered long and hard to overcome my teachers' attempted brainwashing. I went to a Fundamentalist Cristian School from 3k to 11th grade. By the time I was 16, I was angry, depressed, had seizures and a bad case of OCD, and it all cleared up when I de-converted. I think the irrational beliefs that had been shoved down my throat as a child were in constant conflict with my logical thought process. Of course even after I quit believing it took a long time to get over the graphic images of hell my teachers had painted in my mind, many of which was more a product of their imaginations than Bible verses.

And

"That was in a letter to a church, obviously they had a problem with women in the back having a natter. If it was men who were the problem that verse would read "men of the church be silent"."
1 Corinthians 14:34
women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says.

"If you're talking about the verse saying women shouldn't teach men, why is that so crazy?"
Because women are just as capable of passing on intelligence as men are.

"lust=fornication
The gap in between is merely the fear of getting caught.
anger=murder
Likewise"
No, the gap between those is harming another person, which apparently isn't very important to God if he sees them as the same thing.

"Well no one ever had to teach you to lie, cheat and steal but the god money says that you've probably done all these things at some point in your life. Sounds like a perfectly good explanation."
My point wasn't that I'm not naturally sinful, it is that I shouldn't be if God is indeed just. I should get the same chance as Adam and be born without sin, instead I am punished for Adam's mistake. What if the police showed up at your doorstep to arrest you because your grandfather assaulted one of them 20 years ago?

"lol, do tell why you consider these provisions inadequate?"
Mainly because others would be very quick to take advantage of you if you were to actually follow these teachings.

"Talented man for someone winging it."
I actually have to take that back, he was one of the first Europeans to apply the scientific method developed my the Muslims, his actions kicked off the Renaissance.

"lol, very amusing, so this DIVERSE community is made up exclusively of... scientists... not that they are all going to have common goals?"
If all scientists have a common goal, it is to know the truth.

"Besides, some scientists who suggest things that are unpopular are often expelled."
I wouldn't mind seeing a modern example, and don't use one from Stein's propaganda work, he lied through his teeth in that that thing and I can prove it.

"I confess no. I appreciate they will take some time fr me t read and digest which is why I shall have to take my time before further discussing that area."
As long as you plan to read them I'm fine. The reason I sent them to you is to show that evolution does account for social behavior

 

[ebbixx]

This means that ensuring the survival of your genes should only constitute finding a suitable mate with good genes, and reproduce as often as possible. however, there is a drawback to this. Given the expenses of a child's existence, we are generally forced to have only a few children, lest we lose our money, our means of survival.

Speaking strictly as devil's advocate, doesn't this perhaps suggest that the structure of a society is "immoral" that acts thusly against the biological imperative?

After all, this calculus (where more children = greater drag on parental productivity and earning power) is fairly recent in origin -- in the US only arising in the post-WWII era in many communities, and arising in much of Europe and Britain only after the advent of the industrial revolution.

In more agrarian and subsistence cultures, children are effectively chattel, part of a parent's "inventory" of productive tools, little different in practical terms than an axe or a plow or any other tool that enhances productivity and enables the family unit to rise (if only slightly) above subsistence levels, enhancing their collective survival chances the more productive and impervious to farm accidents the children happen to be.

 

[GoodKat]

Next Round!

From him:

Can a person lose their salvation is to me a perfect example of something that should remain abiguous.
This is why; say for example someone was a Christian and then they 'back-slide' (I don't know what the PC term would be) now if I know that they are going to heaven I might get lazy and not bother trying to help them. If I'm not sure I with be moved with compassion to do everything I can to ensure they always have the support they need to make the right decision, should they choose such.

As for people arguing... I think there will always be debate and there is nothing unhealthy about that, if anything when one thinks they know everything perfectly they are in a dangerous position.

"Oh I think it could, all of a sudden you couldn't refer to the Bible as infallible, and thus you could no longer appeal to its authority on any matter."
Of course, if that were the case, but I don't think it is. A book will always have bits of language that need careful cnsideration, esp when such a important topic is at state, its just a case of patience and thought. In fact I would probably attribute a large ammount of my intelligence to the time spent considering the variations and permutations that would result from various interpretations of the Bible and such deep thought.

I can only offer my genuine sympathies regarding your experience. You obviously found it very unpleasant and there is no way around it.
When I was younger I was a very angry person, I was very bitter and quite hateful. I knew the Bible, I had parents who brought me up to know it and the principles it extols (thank God). However for a time it seemed to me almost a sick joke. There was a rule book that had all the answers and yet no one listened to it and s there was so much suffering. Further the most infuriating part of all was that I myself could not follow it. I made mistakes too, and as such I was well, in short, a relevtively vile person, bitter is the correct word.

I of course can only speak of my own experience but this later changed when I moved to a different church and met people of my own age who were good honest Christians. When I saw the love that they had for each other (I know this is sounds cheesy as it gets but who cares, its the truth) I could see that the fact I didn't live up to the rules didn't matter the most, what mattered was that where there is love there is forgiveness and whete there is forgiveness life works and it all makes sense.

That was a very long and preachy way of saying that I understand how moral principles that appear unattainable can really make one depressed when the whole picture is seen. But when love is in the picture (proper love not the stuff peddled in Rom Coms) all reason to be depressed etc goes away.

As for the rammblings about hell, you know as well as I do that it means nothing unless its in the Bible anyway, although no doubt that is little consolation for you having to hear it.

and

"Because women are just as capable of passing on intelligence as men are."
I imagine that I am going to do myself no favours here, but hey, I'm just going t 'spit' it and if that makes me a male Chauvinist then there is not much I can do. Generally women do not remain as objective as men. Ahhh, wait, before you call me an ignorant bigot this is not me talking but biology. A womans brain has stronger neuro connections between the left half (logic) and the right half (emotion) which makes them less likely to remain objective. That isn't me talking, that is just biology. You can't call me a bigot for that.
Are all men objective? No of course they are not, but then not all men get to lead a church, you only pick the ones that are particularly good.
Now don't get me wrong, its not like I care personally whether a woman teaches or not, it means not a jot, however since God did design both man and woman, I am not so arrogant as to think that I know better than Him. He says it for a reason, not for the Giggles.

"No, the gap between those is harming another person, which apparently isn't very important to God if he sees them as the same thing."
If He saw them as the same thing I'd be inprison for murder by now. It is talking about the heart, the sin, the root of the problem, and in that sense it is true. It is not saying they are exactly the same in the physical sense else the result would be well I've thought it, might as well do it now. Its talking about the root is no different, and that is true.

"instead I am punished for Adam's mistake"
Thought experiment for you, you're Adam, you really think you would have done anything else?

"others would be very quick to take advantage of you if you were to actually follow these teachings."
Matthew 10:16
Behold, I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves. Therefore be wise as serpents and harmless as doves.
The Bible is a book that is to be taken as a whole. It doesn't mean let people piddle all over you, it means don't retaliate.
The most obviously and childish example I can think of goes thus:

man A: you looked like a complete burke dancing 'man B'
man B: yeah I know, I looked mental
(man B turned the other cheek and just looks fine)

man A: you looked like a complete burke dancing 'man B'
man B: No I didn't, shut up, besides you looked like an idiot!
(man B looks defensive, and like a prat, his obvious insecurity demonstrating that pursuing his humilation will be entertaining).

I know its a childish example, but sometimes turning the other cheek works in real life.

Or (to make this an even longer essay)
during the wars of religion in France the protestants tried to kidnap a prince so that they could secure they future safety. This gave the RC's a perfect excuse to say they were dangerous and a threat to the country, as a result thousands of protestants were murdered. If they had pursued a less aggressive tactic maybe it wouldnt have happend (I'm not judgin I'm sure I'd make worse mistakes). Some times turning the other cheek just works.

"If all scientists have a common goal, it is to know the truth."
Admirable but unfortunately I fear not. Such pure ideals are to be pursued with vigor no doubt but rarely to be trusted to humans... or am I just a cynic

"I wouldn't mind seeing a modern example, and don't use one from Stein's propaganda work, he lied through his teeth in that that thing and I can prove it."
I have NO idea who Stein is, but I am glad to provide the most modern example. Here in the UK a man was kicked out of the Royal Society because he said that they should 'consider' (thats right just CONSIDER) intelligent design. While that wouldn't happen in the US (serious if it all goes wrong over here you may have another religius nut coming your way unfortunately it did over here.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14746-royal-society-prof-resigns-over-comments-.html
There you go new scientist, can't get more unbias than that regarding facts??

"As long as you plan to read them I'm fine. The reason I sent them to you is to show that evolution does account for social behavior"
This I shall address when I have read appropriately.


Hmmm I'm quite enjoying these discussions at the moment all good fun!

And my responses:

"If I'm not sure I with be moved with compassion to do everything I can to ensure they always have the support they need to make the right decision, should they choose such."
This is a little off topic, but I'm kind of a stickler. If they're backsliding, you probably don't know for sure if they were ever "saved" in the first place.

"As for people arguing... I think there will always be debate and there is nothing unhealthy about that, if anything when one thinks they know everything perfectly they are in a dangerous position."
Trust those who are searching for the truth, distrust those who have found it. The problem is, almost all of the denominations I have encountered seem to think they have it all figured out, when it's quite obvious that such an achievement is impossible. My problem is that I would think an all-powerful, all knowing being would be capable of conveying his message in such a way that it could not be misinterpreted, at least by those honestly seeking to know his will, and I would expect a being who genuinely cares about humanity to do so, instead of writing it in a difficult to translate language and filling it with all kinds of symbolism and apparent contradictions. Not to mention sending it to only one part of the world, where it would take literally millenia before it would reach some people.

"In fact I would probably attribute a large amount of my intelligence to the time spent considering the variations and permutations that would result from various interpretations of the Bible and such deep thought."
I would attribute mine to educational television and wikipedia. But I don't think we should abandon the topic just yet, I have been researching more, and the phrase "was I not known" is expressed in the "niphal perfect" tense, meaning simple passive action, it is not asking a question, it is making a statement. This is cleared up by better translations such as NIV, stating "I did not make myself known to them." And in CEV, what I consider the easiest to understand, it says "I came as God All-Powerful and did not use my name." This is actually much clearer than many of the other texts I have come across.

I thank you for your condolences, but let me assure you my de-conversion had almost nothing to do with a bad experience, and almost everything to do with my inability to rationalize my beliefs. As far as I can tell, it was inevitable, at this point the very notion of faith seems alien to me.

and

"Generally women do not remain as objective as men."
The key word here being "generally". There are many women who are smarter and probably more objective than me, who I could learn a great deal from, the scripture makes the same generalization error that most racists make. I notice you didn't address the verse I sent you. Here it is again: "women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says."

"It is talking about the heart, the sin, the root of the problem, and in that sense it is true."
Not really, there have been many people who have angered me greatly, but the thing that stayed my hand was not the legal repercussions, but my own "heart". I didn't let their actions slide because others were watching, I did it because I knew I would not be justified in taking such action, I knew that the wrong they had done me did not make them deserving of injury or death.

"Thought experiment for you, you're Adam, you really think you would have done anything else?"
You seem to be implying that everyone would have made the same mistake, if this is true, then it was basically a trap and Adam's disobedience was inevitable. Even if this is not so, I don't see how Adam, much less any of his descendants could be blamed for his "sin", considering he didn't even know what evil was prior to eating the fruit. I don't know enough specifics to tell you how I would fare in the same situation, but it really makes no difference, the fact of the matter is I was not given the same opportunity of living without sin as Adam, and I am being punished for his mistake. This was one of the beliefs I was unable to reconcile when I was a Christian, and I doubt you can either.

"It doesn't mean let people piddle all over you, it means don't retaliate."
It seems like people are always so quick to write their own meanings into their preferred holy book, seemingly only taking things at face value when it's convenient.

"Admirable but unfortunately I fear not. Such pure ideals are to be pursued with vigor no doubt but rarely to be trusted to humans... or am I just a cynic "
Seeing all of mankind as filthy sinners can do that to you. My point wasn't that they are all indeed out to know the truth, it was that it was the closest thing all scientists could have to a common goal.

"I have NO idea who Stein is"
Consider yourself lucky.

"Here in the UK a man was kicked out of the Royal Society because he said that they should 'consider' intelligent design."
Actually he said they should address it in the classroom. This issue is currently VERY politically charged, and from that standpoint I can see why the Royal Society asked him to step down. He has not, however, been expelled from the scientific community and at most has lost an administrative position, this should have no affect on his ability to carry out and submit research. The reason intelligent design should not even be brought up in the scientific classroom is because it is by definition unscientific. It makes no predictions, is untestable, and is at best a fallacious argument from ignorance, it is also obviously a product of religious views, not honest research and inquiry.

 

[GoodKat]

Update!

"This is a little off topic, but I'm kind of a stickler. If they're backsliding, you probably don't know for sure if they were ever "saved" in the first place."
Maybe, but nonetheless if the backslider is your brother/sister/mother/daughter it's nt like you are going to sit back and say 'oh well I guess they were just never saved in the first place... too bad'. You are still going to do everything you can.

"almost all of the denominations I have encountered seem to think they have it all figured out, when it's quite obvious that such an achievement is impossible"
Well we have all got to have ideas in our own mind. There are some things that I don't understand how people can think otherwise and there are some things that if people don't think the same on I don't really care.

"capable of conveying his message in such a way that it could not be misinterpreted, at least by those honestly seeking to know his will"
Generally it is not. Like I said before those things that are ambiguous generally have very little bearing on how you live your life, what you should and should not do is made very clear and after that things start getting more academic. I also haven't mentioned the holy spirit which is important as guidence. Essentially since God Himself is still around yu can always ask Him for guidence on these things. He is hardly going to ignore you just for the giggles.

"instead of writing it in a difficult to translate language and filling it with all kinds of symbolism and apparent contradictions."
Love the Lord your Gd with all your heart and all your soul and all your mind and love your neighbour as yourself. This is the summary of the law and the prophets. Nothing confusing there! Nothing contraditory there either. Makes perfect sense to me and I imagine there is little confusion amoungst other believers. Or
James 1:27 Pure and undefiled religion before God and the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their trouble, and to keep oneself unspotted from the world.
No ambiguity there either.

"Not to mention sending it to only one part of the world, where it would take literally millenia before it would reach some people."
Thank goodness for YouTube

How do you knw it is in that tense? I'm not saying you're a liar I'm curious. Well in that case I guess maybe my counter part was right. I was talking to someon else regarding it and they said either Abraham considered God a personal God but God did not make Himself known to him as a personal God or when Abraham called it Jehovah-Jireh it meant another nuance. I'm more inclinded to go with the former... assuming that your evalution of the sentence type is correct. Again I would need to read the Hebrew to know for sizzle.

"I thank you for your condolences, but let me assure you my de-conversion had almost nothing to do with a bad experience"
I'm sure I've read somewhere that Einstein said that most passionate atheists have usually had some unpleasant experience with religion, when they were younger or whatever. Anyway, rather ancilliary...

"the very notion of faith seems alien to me"
Really? I really doubt that, don't ask me why, I don't know you, never met you etc, but I reckon that is probably not entirely the case. Still not much discussing it! In a discussion about your subjective beliefs I feel I have a handicap!

Not to mention sending it to only one part of the world, where it would take literally millenia before it would reach some people.

And

"There are many women who are smarter and probably more objective than me, who I could learn a great deal from"
Wooow, calm down right there, the Bible says a woman shouldn't have authority over a man (1 TIm 2:12). If there was a wise woman I would thorughly encourage you to listen to her etc.

Here it is again: "women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says."
It's true it says that women should be in submission to men.... but then it says that (in the example of man and wife) that the husband is to love his wife and Christ loved the church and gave Himself for it. Frankly if such were life this world would be happy place. I don't think women would care either, its only when men start acting like [insert insult]s that problems would arise.

"Not really, there have been many people who have angered me greatly, but the thing that stayed my hand was not the legal repercussions, but my own "heart". I didn't let their actions slide because others were watching, I did it because I knew I would not be justified in taking such action, I knew that the wrong they had done me did not make them deserving of injury or death."
Mmmm maybe I'm a cynical person again, or maybe its my psychology coming through but... if you were angry you would want then to suffer so that they didn't do it again.
If I was forced to adhere to stereotypes and profiles.... women rarely respond with violence. It's seen as pointless and undesirable. You would emtionally hurt them. Tell me, when someone says something that hurts you, when you feel that sting, do you not instantly think 'cow... she should shut up because she [insert flaw or point of their inadequacy here]'?
I get frustrated when I'm aruging with my friends, I don't want to kill/hurt them. Real anger though I'm betting when someone hurts you, your instantaneous reaction is that you do want them to suffer.

"You seem to be implying that everyone would have made the same mistake"
No I was just asking you. Jesus wouldn't make that mistake.

"Even if this is not so, I don't see how Adam, much less any of his descendants could be blamed for his "sin", considering he didn't even know what evil was prior to eating the fruit."
Doesn't matter, point is God said eat this and you'll die and Adam thought he knew better. Its where all our sins start really, we think we know better than God.

"the fact of the matter is I was not given the same opportunity of living without sin as Adam"
Erm no?!?!?! Where do you get that from. f course you can live without sin. Just dn't sin. What yu can't do is live without the knowledge of how to sin. You have the free choice to sin. Adam did too, but at the time the only sin possible was eating from the tree. Now there are more options but the decision is the same. If you made eat decision right yu wouldn't sin and you wouldn't die. Jesus managed. I haven't though. Therefore I'm trusting in Him.

"I am being punished for his mistake."
No you can not sin too.

"This was one of the beliefs I was unable to reconcile when I was a Christian, and I doubt you can either."
No, I think it makes sense.

"It seems like people are always so quick to write their own meanings into their preferred holy book, seemingly only taking things at face value when it's convenient."
A slap on the cheek is an insult. A SLAP on the cheek, that isn't trying to kill them, its not trying to mortally wound them. It doesn't say, if someone is trying to commit gbh/abh/rape murder let them get on with it. A slap is an insult. I don't think I'm distorting it at all. Besides, it makes sense that smethings just have to be thought through, He gave me a brain didn't He?

"it was that it was the closest thing all scientists could have to a common goal."
I can think of another: getting funding. I imagine they may all have that goal in common too. I'm not having a go at them. I'm not saying they are any worse than you or I. I'm just saying humans will always be human and there is no point thinking that when they put on the lab coat they dn't take all their flaws and prejudice with them.

"this should have no affect on his ability to carry out and submit research."
You are joking?

"The reason intelligent design should not even be brought up in the scientific classroom is because it is by definition unscientific."
And yet they didn't say that did they? No they kicked him out. Freedom or thought/espression bang, gone. They didn't just say no. They sent out a message. Don't challenge us with things we don't like. Don't question us. There is no place for it. If you don't adhere to what we say, get out. That action was nothing t do with science- it was simply 'if this man isn't kicked out who knows who else could start agreeing. That isn't the science I love, that is politics and power.

My Response:

"it's not like you are going to sit back and say 'oh well I guess they were just never saved in the first place... too bad'. You are still going to do everything you can."
That was my point, I was saying that the ambiguity was unnecessary.

"Well we have all got to have ideas in our own mind. There are some things that I don't understand how people can think otherwise and there are some things that if people don't think the same on I don't really care."
That's the great thing about open minded discussion, it subjects our views up to the critiques of others, who are more likely to notice when we are mistaken. I find, however, that the vast majority of believers are incapable of such conversation, usually bringing an 'I'm right you're wrong' attitude to the table. From what I can tell, this bigoted demeanor is a defense mechanism for poorly supported beliefs. Such people of course are unconcerned with actually knowing the truth, they simply wish to remain unchallenged in their comfortable delusions.

"Like I said before those things that are ambiguous generally have very little bearing on how you live your life"
I would think knowing whether or not to follow the OT laws would have a massive affect on your life, yet the Bible gives no clear answer on this.

"I also haven't mentioned the holy spirit which is important as guidance. Essentially since God Himself is still around you can always ask Him for guidance on these things."
Hahahahaha, I was waiting for that! Innumerable people claim every day that the Holy Spirit has revealed something to them, and many of their claims are contradictory. How do you sort out who is right and wrong with no objective evidence? How do you even know that the Holy Spirit is talking to you, and not the person you are disagreeing with? Are you superior to them? This is why I never allow myself to knowingly form opinions based on feelings, I think it is not only illogical, but arrogant and demeaning to those who do not share my views.

"Love the Lord your God with all your heart and all your soul and all your mind and love your neighbor as yourself. This is the summary of the law and the prophets. Nothing confusing there!"
Taken by itself the verse is rather straightforward, but when it is compared with 'If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters,yes, even his own life,he cannot be my disciple.'(Luke 14:26), things can quickly become confusing.

"to keep oneself unspotted from the world."
That actually strikes me as very ambiguous. Does this mean that we should live up not only to God's standards, but also the world's?

"Thank goodness for YouTube "
Hmm? Is that a use of sarcasm intended to dodge the point? How many people do you think died never even hearing the name Jesus? Were they less important than the rest of us? Does God care more about me than He does them?

"How do you know it is in that tense?"
The website I linked you to with the original Hebrew has a great deal of information. Bear in mind the word for 'Jehovah' is written exactly the same in both verses, and my interpretation is backed up by practically every translation.

"Again I would need to read the Hebrew to know for sizzle."
Perhaps you should learn it, if "but by my name the LORD I did not make myself known to them" is ambiguous in English, who knows what else you could be misreading?

"I'm sure I've read somewhere that Einstein said that most passionate atheists have usually had some unpleasant experience with religion, when they were younger or whatever."
And Sigmund Freud believed that religion was an expression of underlying psychological neuroses and distress.

"Really? I really doubt that, don't ask me why, I don't know you, never met you etc, but I reckon that is probably not entirely the case."
Allow me to elaborate. I spend a great deal of time critically analyzing my own beliefs. If I find that I cannot justify an opinion through logic and objective evidence, I drop it. Faith is antithetical to this, as it tells us that it is virtuous to believe without rational justification. I couldn't disagree more. The People's Temple followed Jim Jones on faith, Muslim extremists follow their deranged leaders on faith, and Catholics follow the word of the Pope on faith, I refuse to be a fool.

"the Bible says a woman shouldn't have authority over a man"
This is still a generalization fallacy, I'm sure plenty of corporations can attest to the ability of women to govern.

"It's true it says that women should be in submission to men.... but then it says that (in the example of man and wife) that the husband is to love his wife and Christ loved the church and gave Himself for it. Frankly if such were life this world would be happy place. I don't think women would care either, its only when men start acting like [insert insult]s that problems would arise."
It's not about being treated kindly, it's about equal rights. If you were to follow these commands to their logical conclusions, women wouldn't be able to vote, run for office, or hold a management position over men in a business. They would be second class citizens, holding fewer rights than men and being taken care of by them, like children.

"Mmmm maybe I'm a cynical person again, or maybe its my psychology coming through but... if you were angry you would want then to suffer so that they didn't do it again....Real anger though I'm betting when someone hurts you, your instantaneous reaction is that you do want them to suffer."
Yes, that is my instantaneous, irrational reaction, but as I said, it is my sense of right and wrong that prevents action, not fear of repercussions.

"Tell me, when someone says something that hurts you, when you feel that sting, do you not instantly think 'cow... she should shut up because she [insert flaw or point of their inadequacy here]'?
Only if that inadequacy makes their statement hypocritical. I very rarely jump to unrelated points in conversation, and I instantly recognize ad hominems as illogical.

"No I was just asking you. Jesus wouldn't make that mistake."
It doesn't matter which way you slice it, Jesus had the mind of God. Give me omniscience and I guarantee that I can live a perfect life too.

"Doesn't matter, point is God said eat this and you'll die and Adam thought he knew better. Its where all our sins start really, we think we know better than God."
It always seems as though Christians are wholly unaware of the importance of fault. If I feed peanuts to someone with allergies who I have never met before, and they die of anaphylactic shock, should I be punished for it? Clearly I killed them, and doing so would certainly be wrong, but I cannot be blamed for it, just as it would be unjust to punish Adam for doing something wrong before he even understood the concept of wrong, and it would be abhorrent to punish his descendants for it.

"Erm no?!?!?! Where do you get that from. of course you can live without sin. Just don't sin. What you can't do is live without the knowledge of how to sin. You have the free choice to sin. Adam did too, but at the time the only sin possible was eating from the tree."
O I see, you aren't from the school that teaches that we naturally sin because of the incident in the garden. That changes things slightly, but I'm still not receiving the same chance as Adam. I am deluged by temptation, encompassed by sin, constantly watching others pleasure in their indulgence. Adam had to not eat a fruit, and he had God there in physical form to personally tell him not to, not to mention the fact that he was in a literal paradise.

"No you can not sin too."
You don't believe in the "Sin nature", but that isn't the only punishment, clearly I'm not living in the garden of Eden.

"A slap on the cheek is an insult. A SLAP on the cheek, that isn't trying to kill them, its not trying to mortally wound them. It doesn't say, if someone is trying to commit gbh/abh/rape murder let them get on with it."
I forgot to mention the rest of the passage: 'Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back.'

"Besides, it makes sense that somethings just have to be thought through, He gave me a brain didn't He?"
Which is why I cannot understand His high regard for faith. He gives us logic, asks us to circumvent it in following His word, then asks us to apply it in its interpretation!

"I can think of another: getting funding. I imagine they may all have that goal in common too."
I'm sure there are a great many scientists who research because it is their passion, who see funding as secondary.

"there is no point thinking that when they put on the lab coat they don't take all their flaws and prejudice with them."
Of course they do, but that's what peer-review is for.

"You are joking?"
'Reiss is to return, full time, to his position as Professor of Science Education at the Institute of Education, the Royal Society says.' His position in the Royal Society was administrative, not research related. He has not been expelled from the scientific community or anything of the sort.

"They didn't just say no. They sent out a message. Don't challenge us with things we don't like. Don't question us. There is no place for it. If you don't adhere to what we say, get out. That action was nothing to do with science- it was simply 'if this man isn't kicked out who knows who else could start agreeing. That isn't the science I love, that is politics and power."
It wasn't about him challenging the status quo, it was about a man who is supposed to represent the Royal Society, taking a stance opposite of theirs on an extremely politically charged issue. It's about the image of the Royal Society as a respectable scientific institution which he damaged. The issue of intelligent design in science classes is not a question of its viability as a theory, there is no question there, it's a matter of policy, and the Royal Society's policy, as it should be, is to keep science class scientific.