I didn't expect everyone to agree with my viewpoints in "Column shows ignorance in logic-based argument" (SN 1/19), but I did expect a sound and relevant response, neither of which has happened.

Laura Godek made a severe error in "Ancient, current thinkers reject God's existence" (SN 1/23) by saying that I claimed "there is no evidence disproving the existence of God." Not only did I not say that, I didn't even imply it.

Lauren Brace's response, "Christians must respect beliefs of other religions" (SN 1/23), is about as prejudiced as David Duke. "You Christians," this and that; Brace's statements are about as intelligent as saying "You blacks" or "You Arabs." Brace takes the actions/ideals of a few and applies it to the population of an entire group. I suppose she might think all Muslims are terrorists.

Jordan Cohen makes valid points in "Religious influence alters scientific developments" (SN 1/24), but they're not relevant to anything I wrote. First, he says my argument is "flawed" but fails to point out how. He then claims my reasoning is "illogical" but makes an "illogical" comparison to prove it. I said that believing in God doesn't hurt; I didn't say Christianity.

Since some people have chosen to argue points I didn't make, but referenced me anyway, here's a summary of what my main points were: 1) Neither God's existence or lack thereof can be scientifically proven, 2) Reasoned arguments exist on both sides and 3) I believe it doesn't hurt to believe in God.

If someone wants to argue those points, feel free. Anything else is a tangent or otherwise irrelevant.

FYI: "Christianity" is an umbrella term that encompasses a vast array of denominations, beliefs and practices. Some Catholic priests bless the rings of gay couples. Gov. Jennifer Granholm is Catholic, yet pro-choice. I am a heterosexual Catholic, yet I support gay marriage. Of course, none of the above mentioned responders probably knew that. I'm just a crazy Christian.

Joe O'Connell
political science and pre-law sophomore