Odd thoughts that cross my mind

I was contemplating something that happened a while back. Perhaps it isn't anything in particular, but just something rather odd.

I was hanging out with some people I knew, I guess you can call them friends, though not really close friends. And, as guys would have it, we started to boast about our past dealings with women, love, and the topic of virginity.

The time came around to share my story. My first time was with a gorgeous and beautiful girl. I started to explain how gorgeous she was, how beautiful she was. I started to say how I'm glad it wasn't with someone fat, ugly, and whom I'd regret. As with guys, and especially with guys you're not too close with, it's a topic where you don't necessarily share your deeper feelings. It as strictly a platonic bolster.

From the left rear seat, we'll call him G for the time being. He spoke up. He is a rather intellectual person, and highly opinionated.
"That's not how I'd like to remember my first time, I'd expect it to be deeper than that."

Something inside of me snapped.... How dare this pompous idiot tell me I'm shallow without even really knowing the full story.

I instantly responded with.
"Hey G, maybe you're right... Maybe I should remember her the way she really was. I should remember how I threw my heart and everything I had into our relationship, how much love I devoted to her and only her only to have my heart ripped into a thousand pieces by her cheating, lying, and cruel desires."

By this time, my car was quiet. I added, "but hey, at least she was cute."

Even to this day, that moment irritated me. Of course when G is around, I'll put in a smile and act friendly. But still it irritates me.
His overly opinionated position probably stems from his relative intellect with those around him. And perhaps that's what irritates me. Because I can identify with it, and luckily I have grown out of it because of the environment I've been fortunate to have.
G isn't used to being challenged by someone of equal or greater intellect than himself, he's used to people relying on what he says to be truth, or at least logically inductive truth. Well tough, I'm smarter than you G. I don't say this out of empty bolster, I simply am. I don't take the crap that comes out of your mouth as gold. And... I have actively sought out people who are of equal intellect if not above that of my own. I value their input, I value their views, I value their constructive criticism on what I think is right or wrong. And I have grown, since I was a kid, to accept when I am wrong.
In fact, I have been told that I'm wrong about everything since I was a kid. Never did I doubt my parents on this issue until the evidence that I was correct was so undeniably blatant, did I admit to myself, that I was actually right for once.
Unfortunately, that has left a scar on my confidence, and I usually try to seek justification from someone else to validate my actions. Though, I've gotten better, there's still a hint of it every so often.
From all the time I've known G, he hasn't once admitted about being wrong about anything. And, even when I've called him on a bunch of crap he's spewed out, he still won't admit it.

Sorry G, Just because you've never been around anyone as smart as you or smarter, doesn't give you the license to assume anything of anyone, or how they should think, act, or even choose to remember. And because I am smarter than you, I will shut you down for every bullshit that comes out of your mouth. I don't care if you've never encountered that in the past, your word is not gold. I don't care if you've surrounded yourself with people who do take your word as gold. I find real friends are those who don't take your word for gold, nor do they think your words are nothing but bullshit.

End of rant.

Understandings, Missunderstandings, and Plain old you just don't know what you're talking about.

I've been debating somebody over the concept of "Super-rational". At first I waved it offhandedly as trivially easy to understand and deal with. However, this person continually insist it was "beyond" our reason to rationalize. IE... we simply can't reason out something so it must be super-rational. He then states to acting on these unreasoned actions as perfectly logical, to believe in super-rational ideas, according to his belief, beyond reasoned understanding, is perfectly rational.
For those who don't know Super-rationality. From what I've understood it, it's a perspective that transcends the local perspective in terms of reasoning. An example I've used to demonstrate this is:

Imagine you're in a room. You are given the option to raise your hand or not to raise your hand. In the adjacent room is an exact duplicate of yourself. He/She too has the option to raise their hand or not raise their hand.
In 10 seconds, you both will be killed unless one and only one of you raises your hands. You can not communicate with each other, you can't see each other, you simply can infer that what the other you is going to do, you will do as well.
To this end, you can not rationally make a decision whether or not to raise your hand. You are stuck at a dead end.
Now, if you take into perspective outside of that room, you have an option. A super-rational option. Flip a coin.
Probabilistically, you have a 50/50 chance of a coin ending up heads. If you flip it again, there's a good chance it'll end up tails. You can use this as a rational anchor to make a decision of any kind. You can safely assume the other you will be making the same logical conclusion. Out of 2 flips, the chances are good one will be head, the other tail.
Now, what if the scenario was with a random person and not with a duplicate of yourself? The decision for a flip of a coin will then revert to a chaotic irrational decision making tool. You can not be sure the other person will follow your line of thought. Again, we're limited by the local perspective.

I gave the person the 2nd scenario and not the first. His response looked nothing like rationality. His solution was actually, "the super-rational thing to do would be to assume that this room is an unsafe place and attempt to find a way out"
Way to confuse the concept with the details.

After I kept telling him super-rationality is not the same as beyond rational, that it is actually a philosophical abstract perspective, he finally got it. However, still didn't admit he was wrong. Simply walked away telling me that I've finally started to skip the BS and get to the real point. *sigh*

I carried about my daily thoughts and didn't ponder on this too much. Few days later I was watching The Atheist Experience, and last Sunday, a caller in the last 10 min of the show called in and started to blab about first cause.

He shifts the burden of proof to disprove his statement, and also to find alternative to the creation of the universe.
He structures it much like many creationists do, "We know nothing can come from nothing, so something must come from something and that something we call god."
Argument from ignorance, proof of ignorance.
So the hosts of the show continue to tell him where the fallacies are. What can be argued correctly and what can't...
Even an alternative creation story was proposed, however, was completely dismissed even without second thought. How ironic, he dismisses other creation theory without evidence, however, requires proof against his.
But the bottom line came to... "If you can't disprove that my god created the universe, it has to be true" And completely ignored the fact that they've said it a million times, it's a fallacy.

At first, I want to subscribe to his forums and rip him a new one. After a while of thinking, I know these types. They're fundamentalists who won't listen to logic, reason, and even when it's so blatant they will find ways to work it around their beliefs. They will never admit they were wrong. This reminds me of "Shockofgod", and his anti-atheist radio show. He invites atheists to call into his show to answer a "simple question".
"What proof and evidence can you provide that proves atheism is accurate and correct?"
It's frustrating that idiots would ask such a blatantly invalid question. And... worst of all, when atheist do call in to tell him it's not a valid question, he ignores it and continues to state the question absurdly. Accusing the atheists of "playing word games", or ignoring the issue. Or not answering the question.

Which brings me to my point. Why are people so ignorant and love it? Why do they choose to live their life so brain dead and not see the false things for what they are and the true things for what they are? Why do people insist on pushing the ignorance on others? And when someone tries to legitimately educate them because of their desire to see the human race as a whole advance, they are hindered by the desire to hold on to ignorance and superstition?

Plug your ears and ignore logic if you want, but please... please don't bring your idiocy out to other people. Unlike you, some people like as few false beliefs as possible. And for the love of your god you worship, don't teach your children about your god as though it was truth.
------------------------ Additional Discussion---------------------

I started to point this out on a video on youtube about the stupidity of shock of god. And lo and behold, a defender came around.
He first starts by telling me, The question is a rhetorical question designed to show the stupidity of the fact of believing something without proof.
Ironicly, I pointed out that religion does not have proof, and... Atheism isn't a belief in anything, it's a rejection because the burden of proof has not been met.
With a witless response, I am accused of either being an agnostic, or not knowing what all this religion speak is all about.
By this time of course, I'm growing tired of stupidity.
I calmly explained the difference between Atheism, theism, gnostics, and agnostics. I think he might finally have understood.... Then again.. I shouldn't assume. He no longer asserts I'm agnostic, he goes back to the play on words of the question.
Claiming it's "Rehtorical".
My response was:

"It's not a rhetorical question. It's an invalid question.
I've wasted enough time on you. You throw your lot with idiocy.
1. You don't even know what atheism is
2. You don't even know what agnostic/gnostic is
3. You believe need of proof of a null stance is valid
4. You turn around and tell me atheism "belief" is based on no evidence, yet no evidence has ever proven any deity, let alone the biblical one
5. You believe atheism has "beliefs" that constitutes it as religion-like
Idiot"

With that he responded with:

"ha what are you an idiot? Look in a dictionary and learn what the hell you are talking about."

I've had enough... really I have... I ended with:

"I'm sorry... you're right...
6. How can I expect you to understand what rhetorical even means if you can't understand the rest?
.....
You see what I did there... that was a rhetorical question."

I swear... some people just are idiots...