Should atheists directly challenge religious beliefs?

I read these topics as you suggested. They are tidy titles, but they may be harsh and mis-representative of my intent. In particular, the Moral High Ground Pitch is a tactic, but I did not use it. I was simply stating that some responses tend to come across as pithy; this was my response to the former opinion that truth is best demonstrated, not claimed/stated. I stand by my notion that the real goal is to seek the truth, whether by stating it, demonstrated it, or any other valid means at our disposal.

It seems there is always another philosophy to consider, another criticism a stark disagreement. That isn't always bad, because we are in a process of growth; challenge can be wonderful. At the same time, though, I hope each of us really seeks truth, and not just correcting one another.

I don't desire to become "philosophy-proof" to the point that I think my views can't be argued against. I don't believe that exists. I believe Jesus was right, and look what the philosophers did to him, including those who called themselves followers of God.

As far as the "Name Calling Pitch", nope. I was not sarcastic. There are cults. There is also spiritualism among certain atheist groups. They want spirituality, so long as God is not involved. Compared to the often deterministic views among most atheists, this does strike me as cultish.

The "Closed Minded Pitch": again, sure-- it exists, but just because I said "open minded" does not mean I used it. Christians are accused of being closed minded. I responded fairly, I believe. I am not totally open minded; in fact, nobody is. I do believe if one is open minded enough to seek God with heart, mind and body, they will find him. I fully believe this world was made by a loving God (I know, posts exist) who wants us to encounter him. But we often reduce him, as it is said "God created man in his own image, and man returned the favor."

"Truth is best demonstrated, not claimed." - Umm, ok. Whether we demonstrate it or claim it, it is.

"Atheists are for rational..." - I agree, but I would argue that spiritual truth (not necessarily 'religion' though) is at times unintuitive, not irrational. The same 'crazy' we embrace and accept for something like quant mech may not differ greatly for spiritual matters. The content I realize is different, but the principle is similar; we must be willing to challenge our own inclinations and test them. I maintain that most people have never allowed themselves to humbly seek the Almighty creator, with broken hearts, placing themselves into his care at any cost. This requires honest vulnerability, and we can't manufacture that-- if and when we become ready, he is too, and he we become real even in ways we never asked him to. Rational? Yes, once it is realized and demonstrated.

"Yes, future states..." - I differ here. First, if this were true, I would still take it as an indicator we are miraculously wired to naturally respond to stimuli. However, it doesn't even have to be carried that far. Were it true, I have yet to hear any semblance of a good explanation of consciousness. If they're just mechanical, where is the path whereby we are 'aware'? Not just in terms of reacting, but of being truly 'alive'? What science tells me is of limited value here, because like many religions, many scientific claims have later been retracted. Understandable, but why do we continue to think we have almost answered all the important questions with science? We have not. Science is not designed to mediate spiritual matters, yet we kick the brick wall time and again, ranting when the two apparently conflict. They should not conflict, but to the extent they appear to, we may find a lack of flexibility in one or both of them.

"Atheists ...believe...logic..." - So do I. Faith is logical, not blind. I have beliefs that do not feel good, and some which do. I can't just pick and choose.

In the post I just left, I mentioned 'single subject' design. This sounds dry, but I've adopted this as a phrase I use (often just to myself) when I think of faith and spiritual experiences. From the outside, especially to someone not having similar experiences, to explain what it's like is akin to describing a dream-- its events don't really convey its full experience and meaning. So it might sound interesting, or neat, but not as incredible as the 'explainer' might wish. I've learned that the feelings don't always translate well. With that said, here's a recent one.

Spiritual dreams aren't common for me, but a few months ago I had one that rocked me. I stood in someone's empty dining room. I hadn't met her, but was there as her spiritual mentee. On the table was a small meal just for me: a bowl of dip, lined with evenly spaced carrot sticks sticking out. A simple dish, but made with love; just enough to tide me over a while. I tasted it and it was delicious. My anticipation piqued. One other bowl remained to my right, filled with moist sand. As I ate with my left hand (I'm left-handed), she entered larger than life and with a huge smile instructed me to put my hand in the sand.

I felt as a child as I manipulated the coarse sand. Her smile grew. God's nature, good food, spiritual guidance; and the exfoliating sand imparted a sense of purging. I tried to confess a struggle to her; there was no room for it. My breath left as my words felt sucked out of me; it was as if they vanished, swallowed up in grace. Her presence spoke grace and forgiveness; so much so, that anything less had no place. My joy was complete. I rested knowing I was precisely where I belonged. My smile broadened as if it would become permanent. I felt the weight of the world lift off my shoulders.

She was a large black woman with a Jamaican accent. I knew somehow she was the Lord. A month later I read "The Shack", and it all came rushing back. Months later its impact remains, I'm changed.

I've heard a bit about the hedonic treadmill, and it does sound quite plausible. But it sounds to me like a bug to fix. I don't see any reason why we should/must be that way.

As for thrill, risk, adventure, etc. I certainly wouldn't force anyone to be free from risk — if someone can't get excited about life without the threat of death, then I may find that odd, and I may implore them to think of the other people in their lives who may be affected, but it's not my place to intervene against their preferences — I'm just saying that if we can figure out a way to give people the choice, we should. Personally, if I felt there were less risk, I'd have more adventures, try strange new things more often, allow myself to make more mistakes (thereby gaining more chances to learn), and so on. In general, I'd have more fun, get more of a thrill from life, and have more years of life in which to do such things. I can't know if that would be true for everybody, but that's why I think we ought to have the choice.

That's only if survival and reproduction are part of its goal system. They're not inextricably linked to intelligence; we only have those urges because of where we came from. I think reproduction would be one of the most dangerous goals we could possibly give a superintelligence.

In any case, I would not expect a superintelligence to need false beliefs in order to facilitate any particular goals. The only reason self-delusion is sometimes helpful for us is because we're so bad at reasoning about long-term and abstract goals, and similarly bad at translating reasoning into motivation (or at least I am -_-). Sometimes false beliefs can help us get from terminal values to high-level choices, and from choosing to do something to actually doing it. I wouldn't expect this to be a problem for a powerful AI, certainly not one with the ability to self-modify. Being that the human brain is a hodgepodge of modules that were adapted for many different good-idea-at-the-time evolutionary purposes, some emerging millions of years apart from others and in vastly different environments, there are bound to be internal conflicts, aside from our bad reasoning and scope insensitivity and akrasia and so on. An engineered intelligence could be much more (literally) single-minded. An AI built with things like decision-theoretic algorithms and a coherent goal system would have the luxury of being able to automatically go from terminal values to maximally rational decisions to action with no conflict or akrasia or self-delusion.