Disillusioned atheism

https://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2019/01/25/the-train-wreck-that-was-the-new-atheism/

One long circular argument

http://www.claremont.org/crb/article/one-long-circular-argument/

Is consciousness an illusion?

From one atheist philosopher to another:

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2017/03/09/is-consciousness-an-illusion-dennett-evolution/

This is significant because the standard atheist paradigm is committed to physicalism. And if physicalism entails eliminative materialism (i.e. consciousness is an illusion), then that's a defeater for the standard atheist paradigm.

In principle, an atheist can be a substance dualist, platonic realist, or even an idealist, but atheists resist that for good reason. Physicalism, if true, automatically disproves Christianity at one stroke. No God, angels, demons, souls, precognition, or miraculous action at a distance. 

Conversely, opening the door a crack for discarnate minds is a divine foot in the door. 

Rongorongo

Rongorongo -Hieroglyphs written with shark teeth from Easter Island, remain indecipherable 

http://www.thevintagenews.com/2016/09/07/hieroglyphs-written-shark-teeth-easter-island-remain-undeciphered-2/

Unfortunately, there are faith heads who insist attributing these markings to intelligent agency. Classic hieroglyphics-of-the-gaps reasoning. Despite the proven track record of science to explain how things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose are, in fact, the product of non-purposive processes, faith heads, with their superstitious belief in skyhooks, refuse to wait for science to discover the natural cause of these random markings. Cryptography is a cop-out. A science stopper!

Outgrowing God

One atheist trope is that Christian faith is childish. We have a duty to wean ourselves from immature belief a celestial father-figure. 

To that many things could be said, but for now I'd point out that the very atheists who say this often adopt a paternalistic tone of disapproval. They themselves assume the role of father-figures. If you refuse to heed their fatherly advice, Hitchens, Harris, Dennett, Dawkins, Coyne, Stenger et al. will be disappointed in you. Don't you wish to make them proud of you?

Essentially, then, they become substitute father gods. They play on the very psychology they impute to Christian believers. 

The evil-Santa challenge

Peter Millican has a version of the evil-god argument, subsequently popularized by Stephen Law. In Millican's version, the two candidates are dubbed God and Antigod. 

Let's consider a variant on the evil-god argument: namely, the evil-Santa argument. Daniel Dennett looks just like Father Christmas. Right out of Norman Rockwell. Yet Dennett is the Antisanta. While Santa is a generous soul who gives gifts, the Antisanta is a misanthrope who steals gifts by robbing people of Gospel hope. Dennett is the evil Santa!

Selfish genes

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/non-darwinian-biologist-rupert-sheldrake-takes-on-darwinian-atheist-daniel-dennett/

Science or naturalism?

http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2012/04/12/3475939.htm

Grief-counseling for the godless

Here's how a prominent atheist philosopher proposes that we deal with the death of a loved one. 

Whenever an animal treats something as an agent, with beliefs and desires (with knowledge and goals), I say that it is adopting the intentional stance or treating that thing as an intentional system.  

So powerful is our innate urge to adopt the intentional stance that we have real difficulty turning it off when it is no longer appropriate. When somebody we love or even just know well dies, we suddenly are confronted with a major task of cognitive updating: revising all our habits of thought to fit a world with one less familiar intentional system in it…A considerable portion of the pain and confusion we suffer when confronting a death is caused by the frequent, even obsessive, reminders that our intentional-stance habits throw up at us like annoying pop-up ads but much, much worse. We can't just delete the file in our memory banks, we wouldn't want to be able to do so. What keeps many habits in place is the pleasure we take from indulging in them. And so we dwell on them, drawn to them like a moth to a candle. We preserve relics and other reminders of the deceased persons, and make images of them, and tell stories about them, to prolong these habits of mind even as they start to fade. D. Dennett, Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon (Penguin 2006), 110, 112.

The God Genome

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/19/books/review/19wieseltier.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print&

Dennett on Competence without Comprehension

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/06/dennett_on_comp061451.html

Scientists are from Vulcan, humans are from Earth

Daniel Dennett writes:

In other words, whereas religions may serve a benign purpose by letting many people feel comfortable with the level of morality they themselves can attain, no religion holds its members to the high standards of moral responsibility that the secular world of science and medicine does! And I'm not just talking about the standards 'at the top' - among the surgeons and doctors who make life or death decisions every day. I'm talking about the standards of conscientiousness endorsed by the lab technicians and meal preparers, too. This tradition puts its faith in the unlimited application of reason and empirical inquiry, checking and re-checking, and getting in the habit of asking 'What if I'm wrong?' Appeals to faith or membership are never tolerated. Imagine the reception a scientist would get if he tried to suggest that others couldn't replicate his results because they just didn't share the faith of the people in his lab! And, to return to my main point, it is the goodness of this tradition of reason and open inquiry that I thank for my being alive today.

1. I don't agree with Dennett's characterization of the morality of Christians. The Bible doesn't unqualifiedly let people "feel comfortable with the level of morality they themselves attain." Dennett has obviously never seriously taken the time to try and understand the Bible.

2. Dennett sets up a false dichotomy. There are many devout Christians serving in science and medicine. There are many Christian nurses, doctors, lab technicians, scientists, meal preparers, etc.

3. Moral standards in the world of science and medicine aren't always as universally rigorous as Dennett makes them out to be. Does Dennett think all mainland Chinese scientists and physicians and lab technicians and meal preparers have the same moral standards as all Western scientists and physicians and lab technicians and meal preparers? (With regard to "meal preparers," Dennett could Google something like "Chinese food scandals" for starters.) For that matter, does Dennett think all Western scientists and physicians have the same moral standards when it comes to research or patient care?

4. There could be conformity due to mandated obedience rather than because the person genuinely believes it's the right thing to do.

5. Dennett is inordinately praising if not outright idolizing scientific and medical research "standards of conscientiousness" and "the unlimited application of reason and empirical inquiry." It's as if he believes scientific and medical research is ubiquitously far more motivated by an inner sense of duty and conviction to adhere to the rational pursuit of knowledge such as expressed in the scientific method and the free exchange of ideas than by personal rivalries, petty ambitions and passions, pride, self-centeredness, fear, anger, hatred, bitterness, a sense of honor, perceived slights or dishonors, jealousies, revenge, and (shall we say) the baser elements of human nature. Dennett has a sterilized, whitewashed image of the lab. I guess Dennett must think scientists and doctors and lab technicians and meal preparers hail from Vulcan rather than Earth.

Dennett should disabuse himself of his airy fairy notions by reading a book like James Watson's The Double Helix. Or by following the day to day activities and work of scientists, physicians, lab techs, and meal preparers. If he's honest, he can find multiple instances of personal rivalries, petty ambitions and passions, pride, and many of the other vices I previously listed. Not to mention their incarnations in such behavior as gossip, trash talk, reluctance to admit mistakes or poor results, and so forth. And let's not forget recent scandals involving people like Andrew Wakefield, Jan Hendrik Schön, or Hwang Woo-suk, whom many other scientists and physicians originally were perfectly fine with in how they conducted their research. At this point Dennett might do well to exchange his rose-tinted glasses for chicken goggles!

6. Dennett asserts "Appeals to faith or membership are never tolerated." On the contrary, my experience has been there are lots of appeals for others to have faith in the prinicipal investigator or research group leader because he or she has membership to this or that prestigious organization or because they won a fancy award or have such and such a degree from this or that Ivy League institution or something along those lines.

Also, check out what Feynman has to say as well:

7. In any case, where's the obligation to behave morally responsibly given Dennett's atheistic, evolutionary, secular worldview?