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...

The contemplation of a contemplation of a set of facts

Before I get to where this all started, I want to address how I think.
During a discussion, information absorption, fast fact show, or just a set of random occurrences. Something might give me pause, I call it "flagging". It's a stutter of thought or moment of WTF. I don't really let it affect me especially if I'm doing something of importance, like following the flow of information, otherwise I'd lose out on information that might resolve the flag.

After the set of information is given in full, I really don't dwell upon it. I know it's there, like an itch on the back of my neck. But I usually leave that to the back burner of thought... Sometimes it resolves itself. A Eureka moment if you will. Sometimes that comes about even without conscious thought, it sort of just pops out as a random thought that is the solution.

In some scenarios, there simply isn't enough information by the information set to resolve the issue. I can leave those thoughts for years, and come back to it when I am bored with life and feel like contemplating something. Or if it's a pressing flag, like my girlfriend is cheating on me flag.... Yes, that has happened. I jump on the ball and find out as much information as I can. And no, I don't do it under the bias assumption one way or another. The flag is a discrepancy in given information, logic, or previous knowledge in comparison with current observation.

As I forcefully attempt to resolve the issue in the discrepancy, other flags may come up, and again, i put them to the side if they are not directly pertinent. And yet again, some situations arise where I can't forcefully resolve the discrepancy. If it is just a major interest but nothing more, I will place it aside but ponder it frequently. If it is a pressing matter, I will confront the issue out in the open. In terms of religion, this was the resolution.

At a young age, I grew up in a household that held spiritual beliefs above structured religious belief. However, as the trend was, the household was mainly christian in general appearance due to pressures from family influences and friends. As I grew older, the christian view became more prevailing, and eventually took over my siblings and I. My parents weren't against it, they simply did not hold the belief that strongly. However, the children, including myself, believed more and more. The initial introduction raised several flags, I let it pass, my thought process as a kid wasn't as refined. As I grew older, yet again more flags.

As I grew closer to my adulthood, the flags were so overwhelming and the pressure from religion to pursue the life of preaching and the life of a clergy was expected of me; since I am quite analytical and given a few good sermons based on the flagged false pretense that the bible was true; I confronted the information given then researched information, then ultimately, since no clear resolution was at hand, I confronted every religion I can get a hold on and try to find the ultimate meaning behind it all....

I found they are all convinced of the validity of their beliefs. Normally that would make sense, except, they are mutually exclusive beliefs. The solution wasn't within the sphere of belief, but what lay outside. And from there, I found my own solution. Structured religion is a lie.

So as I go through the day, why I think the way I do? I am uncertain. However, it has saved me a lot of trouble, and gotten me into some other trouble. But it has never truly been wrong. It has always put my thought for a pause. Sometimes for good reasons, like the decision that would drastically change my life.... Or simply stupid reasons, like the chemical compound that couples with "sweet" receptors to release that information to the brain. Or, the original thought that created this thought of the process of thought:

As I was driving home from work, I remembered a few conversations I've held over the years. Somehow some of them started to come together in an odd way.

The first was when I was a senior in high school. My sister graduated the year before, and was off to College. When I went to visit her, I managed to meet some of her friends. There was a particular guy I remember not so fondly. He liked to use words like facsimile instead of copy,
epitome instead of summary, or conurbation instead of metro area.
Later I approached my sister, I wasn't quite as confrontational back then as I am now. I asked her why he had to flaunt needless vocabulary, was he expecting to try to impress me or something?
She simply answered that some people just use sophisticated words because common words just don't express what they want to say.... I retorted with, "Right... because 'My paper was a epitome of a book' totally explains more than 'My paper was a summary of a book.'". To which, she had no response.

Fast forward 6 years. I'm talking with two of my friends at a bar. We're talking about the usual. Entangled photons and the uncertainty principle and the like. The thought shifted to the uncertainty principle effecting the results of the observation in the direction of the desire of the experimenter and the eventual influence that will lead to outside quantum mechanics and into the manifestation of desires in the non-subatomic world, mind over matter so to speak.

I was starting to explain something.... "Well from a interpersonal perspective, and human subjectivity, it causes us..... "
At this time, one of my friends stopped me, his exact words were, "Whoa, whoa... Dark, you don't need to impress any of us with fancy words, we're all intelligent here, and we know how intelligent each other are." (And yes this is verbatim, he didn't call me by my real name, he called me Dark)
Of course, that gave me pause... But I let it pass. My friend who knows me better, stepped in and responded with, "He's not trying to impress anyone, he always talks like that."
I continued harshly, "AND HUMAN SUBJECTIVITY...."

But the two thought swirled in my head, and the thought about thought somehow got mixed in there... (see above section)
But the resulting thought was, Am I just like the distasteful friend of my sister? The resulting answer was NO.
The reason was simple. I really wasn't using that complex of words, in my opinion. And the words I was using were indeed not exactly replaceable when his were with more common use terms. Also, I was mindful of the audience. I assumed that my friends were of high enough intellect to understand what I was saying before I said it. Otherwise I probably would have strung out the sentence a little more, but used common use words. Of course I doubt quantum physics jargon would have been simplified any further.
My sister's friend was indeed not mindful at all. If I had not studied as much as I had, I would have been completely lost in the conversation. Heck, my sister was lost half the time. But I kept to myself, he was flaunting his feathers, I wasn't as confrontational at the time and wasn't going to ruffle them anyways even if I was.

Apparently he "normally speaks like that". I think it was more of, he "normally speaks that way......around her".

There are people who use complicated words within the right context and audience, knowing they understand the condensed meaning because they feel more at home communicating a lot of information at a different level.
Then there are people who simply substitute simple words with complex words in an attempt to sound more intelligent than they really are and are completely oblivious to the audience and how stupid they actually sound to someone who is intelligent enough to grasp a greater extent of the language than them.

Note: To my audience,
If at any point you did not understand a word I've written, other than those obvious "common word replacement", look them up and a few other thousand words while you are at it; YOU are not my targeted audience until you can read without stopping. I tend to rant as it is.
I would rather say "human subjectivity" as opposed to:
"human viewpoint that may contain unsupported judgments and/or beliefs"
..... : >> End rant.