Let me first state that I believe in evolution. I do not believe in a being in the sky. That said...

The fury with which the first atheist posters here at Salon have attacked this article comes as no surprise to me (King's sports-blog post on George Carlin last week features a lengthy dialog regarding what I refer to as "fundamentalist atheists"). Strict materialism, or positivism (a more sophisticated form of materialism) always ultimately bumps up against "that which it cannot explain". The fact that the science that these materialists have bound themselves to--in full integrity, I might add, with the belief that it can answer all of life's mysteries--hasn't answered all of life's mysteries pisses them off so intensely it has become one of my favorite entertainments!

Further, it looks suspiciously like it is incapable of answering them (most string theorists agree it's too abstract at this point to ever be proved evidentially). This recurring sturm and drang is evidence of a cognitive dissonance within atheists resulting from absolute belief in something that ultimately is ill-equiped to expose any Absolutes.

Religion has a similar problem that manifests almost identically when challenged on factual grounds.

My problem with this interview is the heavy reliance by Giberson on the word "God". Mr. Giberson, you are avowedly Christian, and by identifying that at the outset you set in motion a chain of cognitive associations that go along with a Christian notion of God. I get from your answers that you do not believe in God as a man in the sky or some sort of autonomous agent acting on creation in a willful manner. Unfortunately, your reliance on the term "God" short changes much of your argument off the bat.

Why not either use a different term for the ineffable force you believe God to be--Ground of All Being, Infinity, All, Creation As A Whole, Life, etc--or define what you mean my "God" at the outset, reminding readers of your "higher" definition as you go along?

Not that that would change any of the first four posts in this thread at all, but it might keep open the minds of others who are willing to entertain the idea that "God" is a pretty decent metaphor for the The Unknown so long as we strip it of its anthropomorphic aspect.

I would very much like to know your thoughts on this idea.

Thanks for another great entry in the Atoms and Eden series.

I very much appreciate the eloquent statement of your belief via action/reaction. One question: If you cannot prove the non-existence of God, and know and accept that--why not call yourself an agnostic?

Agnosticism seems to me to be a much more honest label for all of you materialists/positivists out there. Because let's face it: you don't know. Period. And in all likelihood, we can't know.

But then that's probably the answer right there. That label leaves the door open to the Unknown. Most people can't stand that they don't/can't know everything so they latch onto dogma that claims to know it for them whether it be religion or atheism.

I don't check out everyone of your posts, but this news and the accompanying feeling of loss tells me that I've become dependent on it nonetheless. Thank you, Farhad for your work here at Salon. You will be greatly missed!

I second those who call on the Salon higher-ups to seek out a tech writer with a fresh, unique viewpoint and style rather than the "kool-aid drinkers". Please buck the trend and get someone with a sense of humor and a lack of pretension to fill Mr. Manjoo's spot!!!

Speaking of body blows, that "gold" and "glove" comment was brutal. Funny as hell too! Welcome back.

I've never really found any of Bateman's stuff very clever. Amusing from time to time, but not terribly deep. Now I know he's just tossing 'em off.

Get the name right for chrissake!

Actually, income inequality IS worse now than it was prior to the collapse of '29, if you believe the numbers in "The Nation" a month or so ago in the cover story "The New Inequality".

It's definitely worth a read.

Maybe not as worth it as Opus, but good nonetheless!

Very, very cool.

(and thank the gods The Favre won't be a Packer any longer!)

I really like the idea of permanent, rotating sites, but I think I would miss the (albeit increasingly slight) unique cultural flavor that each host nation brings to the Games.

I have to totally disagree with the whole idea of no flags, no medals and no professionals! I have finally been won over by allowing pros to compete. The level of competition this year is at a higher caliber than I've ever seen--and I haven't missed watching hours of the games since my first in '76. Allowing these athletes to make a living doing what they're best at has not only improved the level of play, lengthened the careers of a whole generation of sportsmen/women, but it has also allowed for much more psycho/social complexity that only heightens the drama and expectations.

If we went back to all "amateurs" (the Chinese and former Eastern Bloc never had true amateurs anyway!) it would be like doing away with the major leagues and only having single A ball to watch.

As for flags and uniforms: you take the nationalism far too seriously! What if you reframe it and think of them simply as teams? That's how I've always viewed it. Then it's no different than rooting for the Packers over the Jets. It's human nature to want to align oneself with a group or team. That isn't hurting the games in any way that I can see. They're certainly light years of civility away from European soccer!