This back-and-forth discussion is interesting, particularly by those letter writers claiming that religion is being given too much emphasis on Salon. Yet, somehow, they can't seem to get enough of the action. It's like what the nonreligious used to say to Catholic schoolboys about Playboy: If you don't like looking at all the dirty pictures don't pick up the magazine.

The most interesting thing, and one that no person can prove or disprove, is the question: Is there a telos in life, a higher purpose other than pure existential living? If there isn't, then going about your business is fine as long as you're living a reasonable life. But what if there is?

Neither Science nor all the kingdom's mighty logicians are capable of proving there isn't. Because we're not that smart yet. But people pretend they are. One letter writer claims that in a few minutes he can deflate all the arguments for faith and God. It hasn't yet been done successfully since the origins of the species - say 1 million years for the sake of argument - so I'd like to see that. And then, after that miraculous feat, I'd like to see how one human can fit that much hubris into one body (hollow leg?).

For those who really know religion from the inside out, like Armstrong, religion is more like a color wheel than a black and white photo. There are rabbis and Jesuits who barely cling to faith, willing to entertain talk about there not being a God, or the possibility of another universe. And they'd consider whether or not a different God is running that universe. It's the search for meaning that they're after, not necessarily forcing others to believe what they do.

Then there are the mystical forms of formal religions, Kabbalah, Gnosticism, Sufism, and Krishna, and the syncretistic religions, such as Sikhism, Baha'i, and Scientology. And then you've got Rastafarianism for those who like their incense to be a bit hallucinogenic.

Additionally, there are numerous kinds of animism practiced by native people considered to be religions. The Egyptians, Persians and pre-Socratic Greeks all had their own, distinct religions. Because of all the diversity, and the vast range of belief in or beyond a God or gods, religion, per se, doesn't represent that Absolute oneness, which the critics seem so willing to dispel. Religion didn't conduct the Crusades. Or chop the heads off of heretics. Or force people to believe in angels. Certain religions at certain times did those things, sometimes contravening the basic beliefs of the religion they claimed to represent. Christ wouldn't have approved of the Crusades, or killing heretics. And Muhammad wouldn't have sponsored 9/11. Just as the next crooked New York cop you meet doesn't represent the entire New York police department.

It would be extremely valuable for the sake of really understanding these issues if the record reflected historical realities instead of gross generalizations. There's one here that needs straightening out: what atheism is or isn't. Atheism is the belief there is no god and if it's not a "system" than why is it that many of the critics claiming to be atheists systematically seek to discredit and/or undermine religious beliefs, mainly relying on science and logic? The truth is, if you don't believe in anything, then, strictly speaking, you may not have a belief system, though there are philosophical arguments that you believe in nihilism. But if you specifically believe in not believing in God or in the credibility of religious pursuits, that is a belief system. No ifs ands or buts. What's the point of relishing the notion you don't abide by a belief system? Is it that bad boy syndrome?

One of the perplexing dilemmas of atheism is that not only can't atheists prove that what they don't believe in doesn't exist, they can't prove they believe in nothing and don't abide by a belief system, because as soon as they do, they're demonstrating a belief system. The more they protest about these two points the more they prove themselves wrong. That doesn't mean that atheism isn't a true representation of reality. There may not be a God.

Another interesting inclination many of the atheists are demonstrating is the knee-jerk attack on religious believers, comparing their beliefs to having faith in Santa Claus; but the moment the tables are turned and the values of some of history's notorious atheists are examined, well, they claim, there's no proof that liberty from God empowers tyranny. A look at the record proves otherwise. Napoleon, a figure who presaged the secular age, observed, "Religion is excellent for keeping common people quiet." Yeah, so they wouldn't scream before he cut their heads off.

In the same vein Lenin claimed, "Religion is a kind of spiritual vodka in which the slaves of capitalism drown their human shape and their claim for any decent life." This kind of secular demonization, granted, one that's akin to religious demonization, designated an enemy as being inhuman and deserving of death. The logic of having separated oneself from moral guidance directly steered these 20th century brutes' political judgments and the most brutal of them, from Mussolini to Stalin, kept bountiful records of their reasoning.

That doesn't mean all atheists or even most atheists are without moral guidance. It does mean, however, it's much more difficult to find a higher purpose to life when you're not looking for one.

Yup, people have tried and tried and tried to find any evidence for telepathy. There is none. Go to www.randi.org to see for yourself.

There just isn't any point in public funding for any more experiments on something there is no evidence for. If you or anyone else thinks otherwise- then you're free to use your money and your time to carry out the research.

Of course, you could also try getting military funding. It's documented in 'The Men who Stare at Goats' by Jon Ronson that the military got quite interested in designing telepathic weapons for a while. Still- it all came to naught, because telepathy simply doesn't work.

No one can prove telepathy doesn't exist- in the same way that I can't prove that there are no fairies living at the bottom of your garden. It's one more negative that can't be disproved, and so of no help in deciding whether a God exists or not.

What I can say is that for any hypothesis to be of worth- it should be testable. The God hypothesis evidently is not. Thus, it's completely irrelevant whether God exists or not- because he doesn't have any measurable effect on the physical universe.

I tend to think of things that have no measurable effect as 'non-existant', since they may as well as be. Of course, other people can choose different alternatives.