|A Matrix-stylized depiction of the door into the atheist rabbit hole, namely, right: take the “blue pill”, retract back to faith-based and or dogma-based notions of secular vacuous reality, and remain in what Alan Watts (Ѻ) calls the “here kitty kitty” world of hoop jumping mentality; or left: take the “red pill”, i.e. begin to question if what you've been told is real and what is not, and therein begin to engage into a modern reality-based philosophy as modern experimentally determined scientific method accumulated evidence indicates and as logic and reason abide.|
In 2010, Spanish director Vladimir Cruz produced the film Afinidades (Ѻ), a modern day run of Goethe's immortal Elective Affinities, about which Corey Nuffer gives the following review synopsis: 
“No wonder why the movie carries with it such an overwhelming feeling; this is a lot to convey in 90-minutes of film, no matter how well made. Adding to everything is the political dimension: Cuba is still under US embargo. Whether intended or not, the feeling of claustrophobia in Affinities seems to carry with it room to at least ponder just how deep the complexity goes. And if things weren’t complicated enough, Goethe is brought up. For those interested in seeing how deep the rabbit hole goes, there is a nod to Goethe’s Elective Affinities. While it will provide more place for traction, it will certainly be without solace for the questions brought up in Affinity, with or without Goethe, bear the mark of great art: They keep the conversation going.”
One example is Arthur Schopenhauer [HD:21][FA:55][TA:10], who became Germany’s first open and avowed atheist, who following his transformation from born-into-culturally Lutheran Christianity, into a young adult logical atheism mindset, via Goethe, began to called all of his dogs, confusingly, by the same name: “Atma”, the Hindu name for the supreme and universal soul, from which all individual souls arise, owing to his theory of individuality, which maintained that in lower animals there was little individuality (Ѻ); the logic of which, in modern terms, being the great chain of being reductionism ideology that humans derive from hydrogen atoms [below that fermions and bosons] which have identical individuality.
Another example is John Stewart [FA:42][TA:2] who because of his own derived godless "moral motion" philosophy, became a pacifist type of vegetarian per his new morality system.
A third example is Libb Thims [FA:42][TA:2] who purely through belief that thermodynamics is behind the prediction and determination of reactions, whether hydrogen-hydrogen or human-human (e.g. male-female reactions), together with extensive research in religio-mythology deconstruction, in 2009 arrived at the view that a walking talking human, as a molecule, just as near-atheist Jean Sales deduced in 1789, is not "alive" anymore than is any other type of molecule, H20, CO2, DNA, etc., walking (see: walking molecule) or not, owing to the deduction that if one believes that one is a "living" type of matter, chemical, or molecule, then, via continuity (e.g. molecular evolution table; great chain of being) one also has to adhere to the belief that the hydrogen atom is alive, and likewise assume, concordantly, that sub-atomic particles (e.g. fermions and bosons) are alive, in some sense, which is an "absurdity", i.e. a type of panbioism belief deduction that when out of fashion with Nikola Tesla, the last semi-intelligent person to adhere to such a methodology. This deduction, along with rejection and denial of the six main "denials" of the modern extreme atheist (see: atheism types by denial and belief), is the so-called "bottom of the rabbit hole" where one comes eye-to-eye with the hydrogen atom as kin. Accordingly, debates or discussions with Thims often result in the "rabbit hole" phrase being brought up.
A noticeable repercussion of this new "rabbit hole viewpoint", being that Thims, prior to 2007-2009, during which period the question of "less-alive" smaller 4-element molecules giving rise, via chemical synthesis, to more-alive 5-element RNA-molecules, started to become absurdly paradoxical, used to spend a certain amount of time each day absorbed in thought every time he drove by a local Bohemian National Cemetery, vexed by the question of what happens to a person when the “die” from a thermodynamic point of view; after 2009, when he arrived at the defunct theory of life purview, a repercussion of which being that if one is not alive, any more than is a hydrogen atom, then one cannot die, just as a hydrogen atom cannot die, the issue left his mind, as misaligned problem, a result of cultural religious indoctrination.
Also, in 2012-2013, the JHT open review process became so clogged up with atheism rabbit hole debates that the project has sidetracked.
Depth | Debates
Of note, the debates seem to be much more vehement between two atheists already partially in the rabbit hole, e.g. atheist Karl Marx vs extreme atheist Ludwig Buchner, anti-spiritual materialism deist Ludwig Boltzmann (Ѻ) vs avowed atheist Arthur Schopenhauer, or extreme atheist Libb Thims vs Dawkins number six atheist Philip Moriarty (see: Moriarty-Thims debate); the latter of which can be compared to Thims vs Islamic theist Mirza Beg (see: Beg-Thims dialogue), the latter of being insecure about his faith was more cautiously tentative with his scientific arguments.
The following are related quotes:
“There’s a point where you’re un-tethered from the beliefs of your childhood. That point came for me when it was finally clear my religion didn’t work for me. I had questions about Christianity that I could not get answered to my satisfaction, questions that I’d been asking since I was in kindergarten. I realized it didn’t feel right to me, that one question just led to another. It was like going down a rabbit hole, each answer provoking another question. There were things I didn’t agree with.”— Brad Pitt (2011), “Interview in Parade magazine” (Ѻ), Sep “You've got the right idea there, but the rabbit hole goes much deeper, for one you have to expunge the word *living* from your mindset. The idea that something can have *life* is an Egyptian theological theory, adopted via modern religions, into the mind of everyone, albeit a theory that is not supported by the science of chemistry. A person can be reactive, but not alive (nor dead); the same is true of any other atom or molecule.”— Libb Thims (2011), comment to ionrocket (Ѻ)
“Re: your article (Ѻ), I don’t know if this is a rabbit hole you want to go down, but when you start talking about “molecular ecosystems” (things supposedly “not alive”) mixed in with the search for the “origin of life” (things supposedly “alive”) sooner or later you will run into the defunct theory of life perspective. Namely, that the concept of “life” is a type of residual mythology trying to force its way into chemistry and physics. The following links will give you some guidance on this, being that your preface is soaked with defunct anthropomorphisms (“self-propelled organic systems”, “living matter”, “emergence”, etc.). our term “self-propelled organic systems”, e.g., translates as "perpetual motion carbon-based system", which are impossible (as are all perpetual motion machines).”— Libb Thims (2012), dialogue (Ѻ) on Jeffrey Wicken with Danish origin of life scholar Richard Egel (Ѻ), Feb 26
1. McGowan, Dale. (2013). Atheism For Dummies (pgs. #). John Wiley & Sons.
2.Nuffer, Corey. (2011). “Film Review: Affinities (Afinidades)” (Ѻ), GoZamos.com, Jun 27.