HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc,alt.pagan
Subject: Re: did I like miss your point?
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 15:12:07 GMT
 <C0BLD5.DMo@unixhub.SLAC.Stanford.EDU> <root.726160682@spssig> <C0FHw5.F7@unixhub.SLAC.Stanford.EDU>
Organization: SPSS Inc.

joann@ariadne.SLAC.Stanford.EDU (Jo Ann Malina) writes:

>In article <root.726160682@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>>joann@unixhub.SLAC.Stanford.EDU (Jo Ann Malina) writes:
>>
>>>They weren't calling on the deity of THEIR choice. The reading from the
>>>book of Genesis on Christmas by the Apollo 10 astronauts was written
>>>into their log by NASA. It was the mandating of this reading by the
>>>government that was objected to. (Note that even though it was
>>>supposedly an expression of some sort of Christmas spirit, it came
>>>from the Old Testament.)
>>
>>Huh?  Because something is recored in the logs (as it everything should be
>>on such a mission), that was 'mandating the reading by the government'?
>>Ya know, I'm all for a separation of govt & religion, but this kind of
>>complaint is ridiculous, as were O'Hare's attempts to ban ANY public
>>display of religion.
>
>Sorry, by log, I meant "list of things you will do on this mission,"
>prepared by NASA for the astronauts to follow during their flight.
>You know, 12:00:00 Comb hair. 12:01:00 Talk to Walter Cronkite.
>12:02:00 Read from Bible. It was made to sound like a spontaneous
>effusion of feelings suitable to the season; in fact, they were only
>following orders. That is what O'Hair objected to, and so do I.
>If it had been spontaneous on their part, it would have been less
>offensive (and might even have had something to do with Christmas).

There are good reasons for scheduling every moment of a space mission,
especially in those days.  In order to do this, it needed to be in the
schedule.  If the astronauts themselevs asked for this to be scheduled, and
none of them objected to it, then there is no reason why it can't be done.

Just because something appears on a schedule for NASA does not in any way
imply government 'support' for religion.  Unless of course you are a
fanatic who is grasping at straws...

 -Steve
--
  The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                         -------------------
   adams@spss.com                                  Phone: (312) 329-3522
   Steve Adams        "Space-age cybernomad"       Fax:   (312) 329-3558
From: 6500null@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu (Null Cypher)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Believers: What IS a 'soul' ?
Keywords: soul
Date: 13 Jan 93 04:06:02 GMT

In article <C0nBwC.4Dp@news.cso.uiuc.edu> jmk45295@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (John M Kaney) writes:



>For those who believe that their 'soul'
>will get to go to heaven...

>What is your 'soul'?

>Sure... there's the dictionary definition
>which could be thought of as just 
>electrical impulses in your head.

>What do you say?


I can guarantee that the following statement is 100% absolute truth:


The 'soul' is the software that runs on your computer (i.e. your body),
and Heaven is a big omni-computer in which your soul-program is run on
a virtual machine.


---  Believe or Perish  ---  Believe or Perish  ---  Believe or Perish  ---
--
                                               --------------------------------
                                               Null - 6500null@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu
                                               --------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (Stephen Tice)
Subject: Re: A nation chosen by GOD -- New-Israel
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: The University of Texas at Arlington
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 07:44:00 GMT

In article <1993Jan8.091014.26416@walter.cray.com>, 
jwest@wisc (Jeff West) writes...

>Please stop crossposting to alt.atheism.  I'm getting real tired of wasting
>my time reading all the preaching here lately.
> 
>Thank You,
>  Jeff West

Well Jeff. All as you wish. I wouldn't have known the thread posting
was narrowed down to alt.atheism if I hadn't moved over here tonite
from alt.conspiracy. Since you've(?) taken care of the cross posting 
problem, that's easy.

I'm curious though. As an atheist... (are you an atheist?) why
did you bother reading any "preaching." Sincerely. I got curious
about "atheist," so I figured I'd drop in for a while to see who
was over here. 

As a starter, is "time" precious to you, or does it hound "you?"
Perhaps you're indifferent??

Other questions: Do you value personal relationship over ideology?
Is "logic" most valuable? How about "morals" and "ethics"? 

Just so you have some idea where I'm at on this, the non-personal seems
pretty shallow to me. Such as being "preached at" rather than engaged in
dialogue. Is that what you miss in GOD?

   |
-- J --
   |
   |  Stephen

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: ingles@engin.umich.edu (Ray Ingles)
Subject: Re: Grander Scale (was: Re: Why it sucks to be an atheist...)
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 93 22:31:11 EST
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor

In article <DGRAY.93Jan10141107@menudo.uh.edu> DGray@uh.edu writes:
>
>ingles@engin.umich.edu (Ray Ingles) posts:
>
>   "Sure, on the Grand Scale, my life doesn't matter. So what? I don't live
>   on the Grand Scale. I live on *my* scale, and I'm *dearly* important on
>   that level." 
>
>A friend of my uncle has some interesting thoughts on this, but I
>might point out in advance that this person has, on occasion, been
>known to indulge in some more friendly chemicals.  Anyway, he claims
>that You are important ona grand scale, not because you matter to
>everyone or because everyone knows you are important, but because you
>change the environment in which everyone lives.
[deletions]
>...everything you do effects someone, somewhere at some time and
>causes them to behave differently than had you not been here.  Their
>reaction in turn effects others and the chain escalates.
>-dennis

 This, in essence, is what I glean from chaos theory. Heck, the way I'm
typing this in (rather inefficiently) is changing the weather a month from
now, and forevermore. I cause thousands of little changes like that every
day.
 However... I cannot help but feel that such changes are of little import
(and yes, I mean the pun on 'important'). I have caused many changes on
that level... but it's impossible to know what things would have been like
if I hadn't been there to change them. I doubt if all my changes have been
bad, but I also doubt if they've all been good.
 I prefer to find meaning in the things I *mean* to do. I certainly don't
take pride in accidents.
 Just MHO.


 Sincerely,

 Ray Ingles
 ingles@engin.umich.edu

 "Icky icky icky icky fKANG zoop-boing n zowzyin..." -The Knights Who
So Recently Said "NEE!"
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
From: drake+@cs.cmu.edu (Drake)
Subject: Re: THE MIND OF THE BIBLE BELIEVER
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Distribution: world,public
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 23:18:41 GMT

mccreary@sword.eng.hou.compaq.com (Ed McCreary) writes:

>So I'm a Satanist and I didn't even know it?  Gee, I never got
>my membership card or my secret decoder ring.  How about a nifty black
>robe I can wear when I go out and ritually abuse thousand of people
>every third tuesday.

Hey, don't laugh.  (All right, go ahead.)  I was speaking with a fundie a
few years back, who had apparently done a research paper on Crowley and
come to the conclusion that he was, indeed, a Satanist.  Further probing
allowed me to understand that all "spiritual" or "pseudo-spiritual" ideas
that aren't Christian come from Satan, and even Hindus, Buddhists, Jainists
and Sufis are being deceived by the lies of the Price of Darkness and are,
therefore, really Satanists.

That's Satan's master plan, don'tcha know - to get people to follow him
while they THINK that they're following somebody else, or even following
nobody at all..."He who is not with me is against me," said the Nazarene
and the Christians today take that literally.

-- 
Love and Laughter,             | NOTE: Private mail must go explicitly
Xeper and Remanifest,          | to drake@seismo.soar.cs.cmu.edu
                       DRAKE   | or it'll bounce back to you...
From: zlsiida@fs1.mcc.ac.uk (dave budd)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: iq<->religion: connection?
Date: 4 Jan 93 11:39:26 GMT
Organization: Manchester Computing Centre

>In article <1992Dec22.172158.11967@hsr.no> onar@hsr.no (Onar Aam) writes:
>n>Although I think that you are right in general, I wanted to add that all (6)
>>the exceptionally smart people  I know (IQ>125), including myself, are Christians 
>>

What scale is this?  125 is nothing special where I come from.  UK Mensa 
minimum is 145 
(Cattell scale)



  No Trespassing: 4/17ths of a haiku.     D.Budd@mcc.ac.uk   fax 6040
  Dave Budd, MCC, Oxford Rd, Manchester, England    (44|0)61-275-6033
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik )
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Why must you act this way?
Date: 6 Jan 93 18:21:55 GMT
Followup-To: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
Distribution: world,public
Organization: (Evil Eye Creature from Mars, Inc.)

In article <1993Jan5.071254.4440@en.ecn.purdue.edu>,
muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) wrote:
> Right by her side.  Death is a result of sin, and happens from time to time
> and for various reasons in our fallen world.  It has no detrimental significance
> for the children of God, however.

Then I'm sure you could explain why children age 0-3 months, or before
they are born, die. From sin, I assume.

Kent
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.		
"Don't just do something!  Stand there!"  -- Mystery Science Theater 3000
From: eradm@wbst845e.xerox.com (Erik Radmall)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Nailing Christianity: Sufficient Suppo
Date: 5 Jan 93 19:30:22 GMT
Reply-To: eradm@wbst845e.xerox.com
Organization: Xerox Corporation

In article 1@cs.cmu.edu, rhuss+@EDRC.CMU.EDU (Robert Huss) writes:
> 
> OK! I goofed.  I admit it.  I was wrong about my statement of migration
> of religions.  I know that Islam and Buddism have spread beyond their
> areas of origin.  I should have stated it more like this:
> 
[stuff deleted]
> 	Can anyone show where a religion has spread to different cultures and
> not evolved to match the culture?
> 
> Bob Huss.

Nigeria. There are two distinct factions of Islam in Nigeria. One of them
took on all of the Arabic culture and law with Islam, the other took only
Islam.


---
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: petel@sequent.com (Pete Lancashire)
Subject: Re: FISH SIGS
Organization: Sequent Computer Systems, Inc.
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 93 06:28:16 GMT


---------------------------------------------------------------
   _______       |                                            |
 oo) XIAN \/     | LOOK! ONE IS EVOLVING EVEN AS WE SPEAK!    |
  ~_______/\     |                                            |
 _/_\  _/_\      |                                            |
                 |                                            |
---------------------------------------------------------------

This reminds me, who is it or where is it, I can get one
of the fish with legs for my car (and my 'stall' at work) ?

-pete
Pete Lancashire
petel@sequent.com
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 18:35:44 EST
From: John A. Johnson <J5J@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Faulty IQ reasoning (Was: Re: iq<->religion: connection?)
Distribution: world

In article <X9yuwB4w165w@mantis.co.uk>, mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> says:
[in response to an incredibly long thread I stopped reading months ago]

>The "sincere observation" that high IQ correlates with atheism is certainly
>an interesting one.  I'm afraid that the last time I did an IQ test it
>indicated that I had an IQ of 68, and so I'm rather predisposed to (a) doubt
>the correlation you suggest and (b) doubt the usefulness of IQ tests as a
>measure of intelligence of any variety.
>
>Of course, feel free to argue that I really am a moron.
>
I'd like to suggest that both the "sincere observer" and mathew are
conducting pretty shoddy psychological research.  Casual observation,
however sincere, lacks the necessary rigor for determining the
correlation between intelligence and theistic beliefs.  If I remember
correctly, proper research indicates the correlation is about zero.

It is impossible to assess whether a 68 represents mathew's intelligence
without knowing the mean and standard deviation of the test and the
prior validation research for the test.  Even if the particular test
mathew took does not reflect his intelligence, this is no ground for
either of his doubts.  Is one justified in doubting the quality of
Honda Accords generally (without checking the available overall repair
records) on the basis of your car which doesn't run well?  I think not.
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Weekly bible lesson (have an open mind!)
Date: 12 Jan 93 20:45:21 GMT
Organization: sgi
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com

In article <parsons.726828820@cygnus.cis.ksu.edu.cis.ksu.edu>, parsons@cis.ksu.edu (Scott S Parish ) writes:
>ethridge@crchh403 (Allen Ethridge) writes:
>
> >There are no god-given absolute morals?
>
> Yes.  The absolutes are addressed in the first five books of the Bible.
> If you want to get condensed there are 10 of them.

Please justify your use of the word "absolute".   Why should I not
consider the whims of some other religion as "absolute" in the same
way?

Perhaps you meant to write "arbitrary"?

jon.
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: A nation chosen by GOD -- New-Israel
Date: 11 Jan 93 00:49:41 GMT
Organization: sgi
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com

In article <10JAN199316392323@utarlg.uta.edu>, b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (Stephen Tice) writes:
>
> Schooling should include a healthy dose of skepticism of anything
> humanly contrived. Do I sound like a religionist or an atheist?

Neither.   You just sound out of touch.   School Science books that
I've seen explain fairly well how Science makes progress by trying
models out and then discarding them.    They don't present Scientific
progress as an inevitable determinisitc progression.    

Your straw man doesn't reflect reality.

jon.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: s0499528@let.rug.nl (R. Dijkhuis)
Subject: Re: Fun ways to get rid of fundies...
Organization: Faculteit der Letteren, Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, NL
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 11:47:51 GMT

In article <1993Jan2.030135.27744@newsroom.utas.edu.au> Tim.ONeill@english.utas.edu.au (Tim O'Neill) writes:
>From: Tim.ONeill@english.utas.edu.au (Tim O'Neill)
>Subject: Re: Fun ways to get rid of fundies...
>Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 03:01:35 GMT
>In article <30DEC199213211569@cc.weber.edu>, tscwhitehead@cc.weber.edu (Clarke Whitehead) writes:
>> 
>> In article <1992Dec30.035249.23858@newsroom.utas.edu.au>, Tim.ONeill@english.utas.edu.au (Tim O'Neill) writes...
>> >In article <1hqoqaINNdk0@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, bb099@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Adam Trent Phillips) writes:
>> >> 
>> >> 
>> >> 	A good one is that if you see them coming to your house,
>> >> take a copy of ICE-T's "Body Count" and put in your stereo, cranking it
>> >> on the song "Cop Killer".
>> > 

I've been on holiday for some time, and suddenly the thread that I'd been 
dreaming of for years crops up! Has anyone archived this thread and would s/
he care to send it to my mailbox?

Reinder

My e-mail address: s0499528@let.rug.nl
Do I have ftp? dunno...
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc,alt.pagan
From: markbr%radian@natinst.com (markbr)
Subject: Re: did I like miss your point?
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 18:43:23 GMT
Organization: n.o.y.b

In article <1JAN199303165318@jane.uh.edu> lib1p@jane.uh.edu (Tammy Stark Blandino) writes:
>In article <1992Dec31.183939.3539@radian.uucp>, markbr%radian@natinst.com (markbr) writes...
>..stuff deleted....
>
>>Huh? How many "fanatic atheists" have *you* *personally* ever met?
>>I sure don't know anyone that would qualify as one: certainly none
>>of them that I've know would think in terms of imposing their will
>>on the believers, even if they did think the believers were deluded
>>or stupid. I *sure* have known *plenty* of fanatic believers, who
>>would impose their will on me, if they could.
>> 
>
>Does the name Madeleine Murray O'Hare ring any bells?
>
>Tammy

Tammy, 
   do you know her, personally? How many "fanatic atheists" have knocked
at your door, or hit you up on streetcorners, or waiting for public transit,
or at work, to bother you?

	mark

Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
From: mikel@Apple.COM (Mikel Evins)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Why it sucks to be an atheist...
Date: 11 Jan 93 17:49:07 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc, Cupertino, CA

In article <ednclark.726716562@kraken> ednclark@kraken.itc.gu.edu.au (Jeffrey Clark) writes:
>
>This is the secret to a happy life! Humans are only happy when they are
>striving for or obtaing successfully something they have convinced themselves
>is important to have or acheive.

This may be an overgeneralization of your particular approach to life.
If you will forgive a brief diversion into Buddhist psychology, the
strategy you describe is referred to as the 'human realm,' a strategy
of continually seeking better, more important activities in order
to lend meaning to life. There are, in Buddhist psychology, five
other realms with somewhat different concerns. For example, the
strategy of the 'animal realm' is almost diametrically opposed to
that of the 'human realm': avoid, at all costs, any new and potentially
disruptive information. (No doubt you have encountered people who
use this strategy; certainly I have).
From: nightsng@anarky.tch.org (Nightsong)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: The Bible As A Rorschach
Date: Mon, 04 Jan 93 18:34:54 PST
Organization: The Canned Ham, San Jose, CA.

> hmmm actually no.  Just personal observation.  Science is devoted to
> that subject isn't it?  Seeking the true nature of things over the perceived
> one?  Once people said reality was a flat world that the universe revolved
> around.  Later we found out reality was something quite different.
> 
> this could get quite messy but *I* see it as the root of the issue.  Atheism
> presents one reality while Christianity (at least for me) presents another.

Well...you seem to be a little two-sided on that --
 First, you talk about one reality.
 Next, you talk about differing realities

Although I am not sure what reality is, I am pretty sure that there are 
at least 3--
 1. What we see
 2. What we consciously think
 3. What we dream (subconscious)

However, none of these may be `real' in the first place, but I will 
not go into detail on that 

> The way I see it, toss out the philosophical 'perspective' crap then only
> one is right (or both are wrong).

Well, as I see it, that `philosophical "perspective" crap' you are 
talking about is the basis of much ofthisdiscussion.

-Nightsong
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
From: rhuss+@EDRC.CMU.EDU (Robert Huss)
Subject: Re: Christian racism
Keywords: Christian racism depiction of christ
Organization: Carnegie Mellon University
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 17:44:00 GMT

In article <1993Jan3.212325.20817@cs.mun.ca>, rumisk@odie.cs.mun.ca (Jonathan Fernandes) writes:
|> martin@cs.curtin.edu.au (Martin Dougiamas) writes:
|> 
|> ..stuff deleted..
|> 
|> >Not once have I seen the point raised that the characters in the 
|> >Bible were much more likely to have been dark-haired, dark-skinned
|> >and not overly tall, and had the same physical characteristics that
|> >most middle-eastern people share today.  I suspect many Christians
|> 
|> ..stuff deleted..
|> 
|> Would it be possible for you to confirm these statments with the quotes
|> from the Bible? I am curious as to what makes you belive that the characters
|> in the Bible were more likely to have had dark-hair, dark skin, etc.
|> 
|> 

	Are you serious?  Jesus was a Jew.  Two thousand years ago, Jews had
dark hair, dark skin, etc...  All the people in the middle-eastern areas of the
Bible had dark hair and dark skin etc... This is a pretty obvious fact.  Blond
pale people were restricted to the northern areas of Eurasia 2000 years ago.  

|> ---
|>  _____________________________________ _______________________________________
|> |`Tis strange but true,               |       ________                        |
|> |  for truth is often strange-        |___       /   rumisk@odie.cs.mun.ca    |
|> |    stranger than fiction'   --Lord Byron|     /---                          |
|>  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\~~/ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|>                                              \/ 

Bob Huss.
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:24952 talk.religion.misc:25141 alt.pagan:14945
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc,alt.pagan
Subject: Re: Madeleine Murray O'Hare
Date: 5 Jan 93 03:04:01 GMT
Organization: sgi
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com

In article <4JAN199320163845@jane.uh.edu>, lib1p@jane.uh.edu (Tammy Stark Blandino) writes:
|> In article <1i63h6INNi2u@fido.asd.sgi.com>, livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes...
|> >In article <3JAN199300363050@elroy.uh.edu>, lib1p@elroy.uh.edu (Tammy Stark Blandino) writes:
|> >|> In article <1i2raqINN8rh@fido.asd.sgi.com>, livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes...
|> >|> 
|> >|> ...stuff from previous posts deleted.....
|> >|> 
|> >|> and blue laws (use to) let you buy a can of beans on sunday, but not a
|> >|> can opener to open it with.
|> >|> 
|> >|> Madeleine Murray O'Hare and her family has done a great deal to impose
|> >|> their will on non-atheists....
|> >|> 
|> >|> Not that I object to the end result, just the intent behind the means....
|> > 
|> > 
|> >Pardon my denseness, but is someone *making* you buy can openers
|> >on Sunday?
|> > 
|> >jon.
|> 
|> *SIGH!*
|> 
|> It's an example of christian fundamentalism and how it affects society in an 
|> area where it is strong and some of the STUPID laws and combination of laws
|> that get passed.

Then I guess I really am being dense.    Previously there was a law
that prevented you from buying a can opener on Sunday, and now the
law has been changed.    Dr O'Hare didn't do that single handledly.
The legislature - or perhaps the State Supreme Court - did it.  In
any case, if you have relious objections to buyign can-openers on
Sunday, you don't have to do it.

Now how is that an example of her imposing her will on other people?

jon.
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:25845 talk.religion.misc:26028
From: v22964qs@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Mike Cluff)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: THE MIND OF THE BIBLE BELIEVER
Date: 12 Jan 93 22:06:00 GMT
Distribution: world,public
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <C0rCLv.40G@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Mike Cobb) writes...

Ivan Derzhanski:

>>His one and only son?  Whose fault is it that he only has one son?
>>He could have begotten a google of sons if he wanted, couldn't he?

>Sure He could have, but why would he have needed to?  The point is not that He
>provided a plan for redemption through His "one and only Son", but that He did
>it at all.  It would be a rather raw deal to be created by a God who knew that
>we would sin and that his justice required punishment, if we did not have a way
>out.  Praise the Lord that He provided one, himself!

In case you didn't notice, you're talking to atheists.  We have a hard time
believing that this Jesus guy even existed, much less that he provided an
easy path out of salvation.  A god that waits thousands of years to save
souls is doing it pretty half-heartedly.  

******************************************************************************
For God so loved the world that He gave Man Free Will and then got pissed when
we didn't meet his arbitrary standards.  Oh, and he had his Son offed when he
realized how impossible those standards were.  -- Michael 4:23
******************************************************************************
Newsgroups: alt.atheism