1 & 2 seem reasonable
3 I have a problem with - Neuroscientists and philosophers of mind are very interested in an explanation. You may treat it as a black box, but many don't. I'm not sure why you think an explanation need not be given.
4 I also have a problem with - have you been knocked unconscious or gone under a general anasthetic? Perhaps you've done meditation until you felt a dissolution of the "self". They'd all seem to provide counter evidence towards your contention here.
5 is a reasonable inference from the evidence - the "we" is dependant on brains. Brain damage can alter and destroy the "I", memories, personality etc. The "I" seems to rely upon the arrangement of neurons etc in the brain. Without the brain, there is no "I".

6 Doesn't seem to be a valid inference from the evidence. When we're "born" and the "I" comes into existence, we're "new" people. Even if you're right, how would the transition from nothingness to existence after death be the "I" that died"?
7 Is a non sequiter.

I feel both Christianity and Reincarnation (various forms of Hinduism and Buddhism, mostly) are both unsupported by the evidence, and nothing you've provided here refutes that. You probably disagree :-)

Nah, the easy way out of the "life after death" thing is simply the lack of evidence supporting it, and the evidence against it (the minds reliance upon the brain, for example). I don't quite know what you mean by "nonexistence now", but it certainly sounds like you're strawman'ing things.

I'd be curious to know just why that act is considered "moral"?

There doesn't seem to be much that has been consistent about Christianity for 2000 years, so I'd be interested in this explanation of yours. Also, the OT is a older than 2000 years (some of it quite a bit older). I doubt you can justifiably claim consistency for it's entire duration.

Aren't Christians supposed to help other people because Jesus said to?

What are the tenets of this "Atheism" ideology? As far as I can tell, the total content of "Atheism" is a lack of belief in, or denial of the existence of, a god or gods. Doesn't seem to be much of an ideology to me :-)

You've not given any reason to think it is incredibly unlikely apart from your belief. Try again :-)

Be careful of such sweeping statements, someone may ask you to demonstrate it is the case :-)

If you are simply pointing out we have gaps in our understanding then I agree. If you're claiming those gaps = god, then I guess Zeus causes lightning and Poseidon storms at sea.

Here's a start for soft tissue, whale evolution. I'm sure google could help as well :-)

You probably should be more skeptical of your sources. CMI (and other "creationist" organisations) tend to ignore evidence against their claims, over play the evidence which lends some support to their position, misrepresent research and quote mine, all seemingly driven by ideology and not a desire for understanding.

If you can find me the blueprints of the cell, describe the manufacturing process, show me the design steps, etc (all things we have for the IC), then perhaps you'd have a point. As it is, you are unable even to point to the "intelligent agent" responsible, let alone supply all of the other information. Your analogy fails :-)

Perhaps you need to read more scientific research into abiogenesis, as you don't seem to have an understanding of the current state.
This and this are pretty interesting to start with.

To put it simply, what evidence we actually have indicates the universe appears to be open to investigation (through intersubjective empiricism), and as a result of that study there appears to be no rational intelligence behind it, or at least no decent evidence in it's favour.

I don't think we are. You seem to be arguing specifically for an interventionist deity. If that's the case, it would be nice to have the coherence and correspondence to reality of this being presented, else we should surely just ignore the concept? :-)

It seems to me that a universe which contains regularities (such as this one) would be less complex than one which is irrational/unpredictable/random (Kolmogorov Complexity seems a decent measure)

It could also be the case that things can't be any other way.

Why, on your account, must it be unpredictable/irrational/random without a creator?

A terrible example. Given our current understanding of the universe, if it's path did carve out an addition circuit, then that would be irrational (and probably count as some evidence in your favour) :-)

Depends on the circuit, and whether there is a better explanation.

An integrated circuit etc, sure, because we know how to build those, how they work, how they were developed and have been improved etc.
If you're talking about biology, then we also have some understanding of how the "circuit" started, how it works, how it has changed over time. That understanding doesn't involve a person (even a person of dubious, immaterial existence such as your "Creator") :-)

Arguing, as you seem to be, from the regularities of the universe to a creator, only seems to take you to Deism (at best). You'd have a long and difficult (perhaps impossible) road if you're arguing for Theism/an interventionist deity. :-)

How does this supernatural component of our minds (perhaps our entire mind on your account) provide for rationality?

Even if Jesus did rise from the dead, it doesn't mean Yahweh exists, or that Jesus is his son/God. Satan (assuming that being exists) may have caused the resurrection. It could have been any number of things, inculding some unkown, infrequent biological function (Jesus is not the only person claimed to have resurrected you know) :-)

The evidence supporting that assertion is terrible.
All of the accounts of the events (the gospels) are anonymous, late (40+ years post event), and seemingly written for theological and not historical purposes.
They all diverge in what happened, often contradicting one another.
About all the agree on is an empty tomb, something Paul doesn't seem to mention, and Mark seems to make purely symbolic as opposed to an historic event.
Sorry, you don't get to claim something is "historic" on such poor evidence :-)

The circular reasoning is actually yours. The reason you believe Yahweh does not exist is that you believe Bible is only a collection of myths, and the reason that you believe the Bible is just a collection of myths is that you don't believe Yahweh exists.

I belief the bible is a collection of myths because that is what it most resembles.

I don't have belief in any god or gods because there doesn't seem to be sufficient evidence to support that belief

How is claiming Yahweh exists because Jesus rose not circular when the only support that Jesus was raised is to be found in...the bible! :-)

Why would you expect that to be the case?

Basically your assertion that without a personal creator we should expect an irrational universe :-)

And you've still not shown how the supernatural component you've asserted exists gives rise to our rational ability, over and above the rationality we might expect from a physical system :-)

You're assuming Yahweh exists and the bible is his word.

Seems to me the only way to believe Yahweh exists is to accept the bible as something other than a collection of ancient myths(which is what it most resembles). And conversely, the only way to accept the bible as something other than a collection of ancient myths is to believe Yahweh exists.

The reasoning seems a little too circular to for my liking :-)

Given that we both accept that our brains are capable of "logical" thought, there seems to be no reason nor evidence (you've certainly not supplied any) as to why a purely physical mind/brain would not discover those procedures.

We've both agree that matter is able to carry out these processes (ala computers, organisations of neurons etc) and it would seem to be uncontroversial that such general rules which would are likely to give rise to "reliable" reasoning are just those which would have wider applicability than more nonsensical "beliefs" (such as Plantinga's running away from friendly tigers examples).

You've leapt from asserting we have no reason to expect rationality on naturalism, to asserting that postulating a supernatural agent who, being logical, would have made us logical.

You give no (and I'm not aware of there being any) convincing evidence or reason to suppose this supernatural agent exists, that should it exist it is what we'd call "logical", that we were created by this being or that it created us with a similar "logical" ability.

While your argument may be valid, the premises upon which you're basing your conclusion seem unsupported, and in light of modern science and philosophy, including evolutionary theory, neuroscience, psychology, philosophy of mind, seems to be rationally unsupportable, at least if you would like your argument to correspond with reality as we're able to discern it :-)

You've also supplied absolutely no argument as to how the supernatural component you're arguing for is able to provide this rational capability, while there is much evidence from both study of the simple brains of animals along with simulation, that such as we call "rational" can result from the physical.

Now, given the greater simplicity of the naturalist account (doesn't involve the additional of the supernatural ontological category, and all of the difficulties that involves, such as the interaction problem), as well as the seemingly firmer epistemological footing of the (intersubjective empiricism seems to trump personal subjective testimony), surely the naturalist account is to be rationally preferred? :-)

You mean the brain in organisms which have them? :-)

Perhaps, but the deterministic data set is not likely to be inferior to one which includes random data - that sort of thing is often called "noise", for good reason :-)

How does one show that this has occurred, and that the appearance of "non-determinism" isn't simply the result of the number of factors going into the "decision" process and the process itself being so complicated that even though it is completely deterministic (or perhaps statistically deterministic) the only way to "predict" the outcome is to run the full process with the full data?

Depending on your actual position, it may warrant a far less flattering label.

Of course you do, as I do mine, just that my position seems far better supported by the scientific evidence :-)

Earlier you stated your worldview was coherent. I'd go so far as to say that if your worldview doesn't allow for something much like the theory of evolution, then while it may be internally coherent, it doesn't correspond well with reality :-)

No "instinsic reason" apart from a somewhat logical brain tending to be more "useful" (like the animal calculating sin values I mentioned).
There's plenty of empirical evidence giving us great confidence that our brains are somewhat logical.

I hope you're not relying upon Plantinga's somewhat incoherent argument that naturalism and evolution are incompatible, are you?

No you wouldn't. You've simply tried to shift the problem to someplace which meshes with your beliefs and places it out of our ability to investigate. As such, I think it's something of a nonsense position.

You've given no support to your position, simply tried to show the "mind is what the brain does" position isn't tenable (and failed at that I would think).

If your position places the "mind" outside of the causal chain, how are the "decisions" it makes able to be distinguished from randomness?

You've also provided no reason to think this "supernatural realm" actually exists :-)

I wonder, if the supernatural is so "necessary" for a belief in a rational mind, why does modern neuroscience, psychology and philosophy of mind tends to eschew substance dualism (the position you're promoting), and prefer monism or property dualism?

I'm not sure you've got much of a leg to stand on if you claim neurons, say in a lobster, can't be accounted for by the modern theory of evolution, nor that such a collection of neurons doesn't process information.

Which is why I added the example of simple collections of neurons. If you're arguing against the theory of evolution in being able to account for this, then you're welcome to your state of denial :-)

An "AND" gate performs a specific process which we deem "logical". If you're arguing about "meaning" having to come from outside the system(s) being discussed, then you're on your own again.

We label it "logical" because it corresponds, in greater or lesser degrees, to the rules of logic which we've come up with. The logic circuit was made by us to correspond to these useful rules, groups of neurons not so much.

I remember reading some time ago about a basic animal (nematode perhaps?) which could calculate sin values.
If it was poked between 2 nerve endings, it's small collection of neurons could figure out where you actually poked it from the different signals from those nerves.
My memory of the details is a little hazy, but the concept isn't very outlandish I'd think.
I'd think that sort of information processing counted against your position on this :-)

Any indication of how adding a supernatural component to a brain solves this problem of rationality, or are happy to simply argue against my position and not support your own?
It was you, after all, who claimed without the supernatural we have to throw out all rationality :-)