[Tiresias]

Perhaps this has been done to death, but...

I believe in the possibility—one which cannot be proved or disproved—of a God in the Spinozistic sense of a "vast, orchestrating intelligence"; that is, I am agnostic.

But how can anyone with a modicum of intelligence bring themselves to say, Such-and-such a god is the only god, and then, for "proof", put forward self-referential appeals to authority ( Ipsedixitism )

Honestly, I'm stumped, but I think Richard Dawkins is on the right track when he suggests (with respect to intelligent people being religious) that it requires a "compartmentalisation of the mind".

What do you think? And if you're religious, please to explain.

[Dakarʒ]

Could you possibly have a more inflammatory title?

Probably, but not by much.

[Tiresias]

Let's not mince words—religion is stupid.

[Dakarʒ]

Let's not mince words - you're an idiot if you think this will get you a serious, thoughtful discussion.

[Tiresias]

Originally Posted by Dakarʒ 

Let's not mince words - you're an idiot if you think this will get you a serious, thoughtful discussion.

I am not going to euphemise my opinion. And in my opinion, this actually conduces to a constructive discussion.

[Dakarʒ]

I now see you haven't been here very long.

[Rumor]

Religion is many ways can benefit those that practice it. The core beliefs are usually those that we should have regardsless if we are religious or not. However, many feel they are unable to practice good will without being inspired by a divine being or ultimate rewards. This is called extrinsic motivation.

Usually, I do not have a problem with someone being religious. I have quite a few friends that believe in several religions, and they are good people. However, there will always be those that commit "evil" acts upon humanity in the name of religion.

There are a handful on this board that are deeply religious, yet do not push their beliefs on others. I applaud them for this. However, it seems they are in the minority.

As long as it does not harm them or those around them, I really do not see a problem with religion. Though, I must state that I do not think there is a divne being that guides the actions of humanity. Then again, I do not know for sure either way, so I try to stay indifferent to the matter as much as possible.

[peeb]

Oh God. Here we go again.

[Cipher13]

Inflammatory title? Perhaps. The truth hurts.

[Cipher13]

Originally Posted by Rumor 

Religion is many ways can benefit those that practice it. The core beliefs are usually those that we should have regardsless if we are religious or not. However, many feel they are unable to practice good will without being inspired by a divine being or ultimate rewards. This is called extrinsic motivation.

Usually, I do not have a problem with someone being religious. I have quite a few friends that believe in several religions, and they are good people. However, there will always be those that commit "evil" acts upon humanity in the name of religion.

There are a handful on this board that are deeply religious, yet do not push their beliefs on others. I applaud them for this. However, it seems they are in the minority.

As long as it does not harm them or those around them, I really do not see a problem with religion. Though, I must state that I do not think there is a divne being that guides the actions of humanity. Then again, I do not know for sure either way, so I try to stay indifferent to the matter as much as possible.

I have no problem with religion, or religious people, as long as they stay out of everybody's way. I don't like people preaching it.

However, when I say I have no problem with religion in general or religious people, that isn't to say I don't find the very idea of subscribing to something that hasn't even the slightest degree of evidence supporting its existence to be, at the least, idiotic.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by peeb 

Oh God. Here we go again.

You rang?

[Tiresias]

Originally Posted by Rumor 

Religion is many ways can benefit those that practice it. The core beliefs are usually those that we should have regardsless if we are religious or not. However, many feel they are unable to practice good will without being inspired by a divine being or ultimate rewards. This is called extrinsic motivation.

Usually, I do not have a problem with someone being religious. I have quite a few friends that believe in several religions, and they are good people. However, there will always be those that commit "evil" acts upon humanity in the name of religion.

There are a handful on this board that are deeply religious, yet do not push their beliefs on others. I applaud them for this. However, it seems they are in the minority.

As long as it does not harm them or those around them, I really do not see a problem with religion. Though, I must state that I do not think there is a divne being that guides the actions of humanity. Then again, I do not know for sure either way, so I try to stay indifferent to the matter as much as possible.

Good post.

But I doubt morality (among the already religious) would break down if I could wave a magic wand and make religion disappear. Those who need to would find another form of extrinsic moral motivation—hopefully, one which didn't exclude all others.

And that's the fundamental problem: If two or more belief systems want to credit their God with un-abetted creation of the universe, then of course they are going to come into conflict. They are mutually exclusive and mutually antagonisitic. It's a recipe for endless conflict. And what drives me totally nuts is that all this suffering and conflict is predicated on nothing other than prodigious stupidity.

But then, I'm a syncretist. God has different masks for different cultures, but it's the same guy (a giant of a man in flowing beard, toga and sandals )

[Big Mac]

I possess a religion handed down to me from my forefathers. I consider it to be true. You do not have such a tradition, and that's fine. But declaring in blanket fashion something you have no knowledge of to be stupid is, well, ignorant.

[Cipher13]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I possess a religion handed down to me from my forefathers. I consider it to be true. You do not have such a tradition, and that's fine. But declaring in blanket fashion something you have no knowledge of to be stupid is, well, ignorant.

I possess the same thing. Well, possessed.

I shunned it given its obvious flaws, which is something you apparently can't bring yourself to do. Can't, won't, doesn't make a difference.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I possess a religion handed down to me from my forefathers. I consider it to be true. You do not have such a tradition, and that's fine. But declaring in blanket fashion something you have no knowledge of to be stupid is, well, ignorant.

Am I ignorant to call Scientology stupid?

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by Cipher13 

I shunned it given its obvious flaws, which is something you apparently can't bring yourself to do. Can't, won't, doesn't make a difference.

Were you Jewish?

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

Am I ignorant to call Scientology stupid?

Not really - Scientology isn't defined as a religion. Some people regard it as such, but we know the genesis of Scientology and the fact that its founder, a science fiction writer, made a bet to see if he could start a religion.

[Laminar]

But I'm declaring something I know very little of to be stupid.

[Tiresias]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I possess a religion handed down to me from my forefathers. I consider it to be true. You do not have such a tradition, and that's fine. But declaring in blanket fashion something you have no knowledge of to be stupid is, well, ignorant.

Come, come. It is my opinion—or, if you like, belief—that religion is stupid.

I respect your freedom to do what I think is stupid; please respect mine to think what you do is stupid.

But you are religious. Let me ask you a question: Are other religions "wrong" ? Would you marry someone who didn't believe as you do?

[Cipher13]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Were you Jewish?

Nah, Roman Catholic.

I went to a Catholic primary school and secondary school (so from Kindergarten to year 12... 4 years old to 17ish). Neither were strict Catholic, so the turnoff isn't based on that. I feel no loathing to either based on the religious founding. They both had brothers/sisters working as teachers there, but only very few, and the main religious influence there was Studies of Religion classes (compulsory in high school, even though I could've been doing something much more useful with the time) and weekly prayer sessions (Rosemary) which mostly involved making 1200 people sit outside in the heat in long, dark coloured pants.

Just to give you an idea of my background.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by toothpick_charlie 

Come, come. It is my opinion—or, if you like, belief—that religion is stupid.

I respect your freedom to do what I think is stupid; please respect mine to think what you do is stupid.

How can I respect you when you define me as stupid?

But you are religious. Let me ask you a question: Are other religions "wrong" ?

That's a very broad question. All religions contain wisdom. I do believe my religion is the most correct, but I also believe other religions are legitimate for other peoples and that my religion is not the only path to God or enlightenment.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by Cipher13 

Nah, Roman Catholic.

Okay, then I'll point out that when you said I am not willing to reject my religion as you did, please note that we're talking about two very different religions.

[Rumor]

Originally Posted by Cipher13 

I have no problem with religion, or religious people, as long as they stay out of everybody's way. I don't like people preaching it.

However, when I say I have no problem with religion in general or religious people, that isn't to say I don't find the very idea of subscribing to something that hasn't even the slightest degree of evidence supporting its existence to be, at the least, idiotic.

I do find it a bit odd that people can base their whole lives around an idea that has never had a basis in reality. However, people have the freedom to make their own decisions.

Originally Posted by toothpick_charlie 

Good post.

But I doubt morality (among the already religious) would break down if I could wave a magic wand and make religion disappear. Those who need to would find another form of extrinsic moral motivation—hopefully, one which didn't exclude all others.

And that's the fundamental problem: If two or more belief systems want to credit their God with un-abetted creation of the universe, then of course they are going to come into conflict. They are mutually exclusive and mutually antagonisitic. It's a recipe for endless conflict. And what drives me totally nuts is that all this suffering and conflict is predicated on nothing other than prodigious stupidity.

But then, I'm a syncretist. God has different masks for different cultures, but it's the same guy (a giant of a man in flowing beard, toga and sandals )

I wasn't implying that morality would disappear if everyone renounced religion. I was merely stating that some people can not find that morality within themselves, so they must turn towards a religion to provide it for them. Now, this isn't always the case, but it does happen quite often. Case in point: Born again Christians.

[Tiresias]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I do believe my religion is the most correct

Everyone says that of their religion. You can't all be right, and so you're probably all wrong.

But would you marry a non-your-religion?

[Rumor]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

How can I respect you when you define me as stupid?

Even the most intelligent of people can make stupid decisions. I believe that is what is being implied here.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

That's a very broad question. All religions contain wisdom. I do believe my religion is the most correct, but I also believe other religions are legitimate for other peoples and that my religion is not the only path to God or enlightenment.

It's too bad the majority of people do not view other religions as you do in regards to it not being the only path to enlightenment.

[mac128k-1984]

By calling people stupid not a way to generate discussions.

Also by showing yourself closed minded and blinded it indicates that we who do believe in God, in particular in the Bible, cannot have an intelligent conversation with you.

I am an intelligent man, who has a number of collage degrees yet I have not needed to compartmentalize my mind. In fact if you read the Bible without making blind and ignorant ascertains you'll find that it actually makes sense.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Rumor 

As long as it does not harm them or those around them, I really do not see a problem with religion.

An it harm none do what ye will.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Not really - Scientology isn't defined as a religion. Some people regard it as such, but we know the genesis of Scientology and the fact that its founder, a science fiction writer, made a bet to see if he could start a religion.

So because Scientology is a recent religion, that makes it somehow less credible? The less we know about a religion's origin, the more credible it becomes?

[Cipher13]

Originally Posted by Rumor 

I do find it a bit odd that people can base their whole lives around an idea that has never had a basis in reality. However, people have the freedom to make their own decisions.

Absolutely, don't get me wrong - people can believe whatever they like*. That doesn't mean they're right, nor that I won't tell them exactly what I think of it.

* as long as it doesn't interfere with anybody elses life.

[Tiresias]

Originally Posted by Rumor 

It's too bad the majority of people do not view other religions as you do in regards to it not being the only path to enlightenment.

Amen.

Originally Posted by mac128k-1984 

By calling people stupid not a way to generate discussions.

Oh please to see my first post. I cited, "with respect to intelligent people being religious" Richard Dawkins on the compartmentalisation of the mind.

In other words I'm asking how smart people can be so dumb.

[Rumor]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

An it harm none do what ye will.

I don't need a fantasy novel to tell me how to be moral.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by toothpick_charlie 

Everyone says that of their religion. You can't all be right, and so you're probably all wrong.

That's an judgment call on your part, not a logical proposition.

But would you marry a non-your-religion?

No, I wouldn't, for several reasons. I cannot understand marrying a woman who has a different set of core beliefs. I would not marry a woman of a different religion because such a woman would, by the definition of my religion, give me children who were not of my religion. And I would not marry a woman of a different religion because that is outlawed by my religion.

[Cipher13]

Originally Posted by mac128k-1984 

By calling people stupid not a way to generate discussions.

Also by showing yourself closed minded and blinded it indicates that we who do believe in God, in particular in the Bible, cannot have an intelligent conversation with you.

I am an intelligent man, who has a number of collage degrees yet I have not needed to compartmentalize my mind. In fact if you read the Bible without making blind and ignorant ascertains you'll find that it actually makes sense.

Closed-minded? I'd say we're more open-minded than religious people are (generally). I'm open to the idea of a god, many gods, or no gods. I'm open to a great many things you are not.

And I do apologise, but I'd never expect to have an intelligent conversation with somebody who believes in the Bible as anything more valid than a golden book.

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

So because Scientology is a recent religion, that makes it somehow less credible? The less we know about a religion's origin, the more credible it becomes?

No, it's less credible because it's admittedly a load of ****.

At least there's some doubt when it comes to other, older religions. Though I very, very highly doubt their origins are any more legitimate, it's not something I'm quite as sure of as I am of the origins of scientology.

I know the post(s) weren't directed at me but I felt compelled to reply.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

So because Scientology is a recent religion, that makes it somehow less credible? The less we know about a religion's origin, the more credible it becomes?

No, I said we know for a fact certain things about Scientology. We know for a fact who Hubbard was and what he set out to do - by his own testimony. If Hubbard had never made a bet that he could create a religion and instead simply proclaimed that he received divine revelation, I would have to define Scientology as a religion. But since we know what we know, we can say with certainty that Scientology is not a religion.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by Rumor 

I don't need a fantasy novel to tell me how to be moral.

Are you entirely sure that the society you were born into, which has its moral basis in what you call a "fantasy novel," did not influence your morality?

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

No, I said we know for a fact certain things about Scientology. We know for a fact who Hubbard was and what he set out to do - by his own testimony. If Hubbard had never made a bet that he could create a religion and instead simply proclaimed that he received divine revelation, I would have to define Scientology as a religion. But since we know what we know, we can say with certainty that Scientology is not a religion.

See, as much as I agree with the sentiment that Scientology is a crock, that's just not a valid line of reasoning. It's entirely possible that having been a sci-fi writer and having made that bet, he still managed to discover the Truth and that Scientology is completely valid.

Certainly those facts make him seem less credible, but whether or not he seems credible has nothing to do with whether or not he's telling the truth. The Torah seems just as incredible as scientology to the non-Jew/Christian/Muslim.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Are you entirely sure that the society you were born into, which has its moral basis in what you call a "fantasy novel," did not influence your morality?

I've had my morals influenced by a Satanist who was influenced by the Satanic Bible, but I certainly wouldn't say I take my morals from the Satanic Bible.

[Tiresias]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

No, I wouldn't, for several reasons. I cannot understand marrying a woman who has a different set of core beliefs. I would not marry a woman of a different religion because such a woman would, by the definition of my religion, give me children who were not of my religion. And I would not marry a woman of a different religion because that is outlawed by my religion.

That's just glorified tribalism.

You can foreclose the possibility of love based on the tribalistic ramblings of some benighted zelot writing in a prescientific twilight?

This is just what I'm getting at. You seem intelligent. How can you be so stupid?

Religious beliefs like these are what must be overcome if the human race is to realise its highest intellectual and spiritual potentials. The belief set implied by your statement above—and others like it, flying whatever colors—is exclusionary, divisive, atavistic, anachronistic, eugenical, primitive and, ultimately, hostile to life itself.

Content yourself with a place among the lower intellectual orders. The human future does not need you.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Rumor 

I don't need a fantasy novel to tell me how to be moral.

Huh? I was agreeing with you. I'm not religious, but it doesn't make the Wiccan Rede any less relevant. People should be able to do whatever they want as long as they're not hurting anyone. Seems like sound advice to me.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by toothpick_charlie 

That's just glorified tribalism.

You can foreclose the possibility of love based on the tribalistic ramblings of some benighted zelot writing in a prescientific twilight?

This is just what I'm getting at. You seem intelligent. How can you be so stupid?

Religious beliefs like these are what must be overcome if the human race is to realise its highest intellectual and spiritual potentials. The belief set implied by your statement above—and others like it, flying whatever colors—is exclusionary, divisive, atavistic, anachronistic, eugenical, primitive and, ultimately, hostile to life itself.

Content yourself with a place among the lower intellectual orders. The human future does not need you.

It seems your understanding of the human mind is about as deep as your knowledge of decorum.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

See, as much as I agree with the sentiment that Scientology is a crock, that's just not a valid line of reasoning. It's entirely possible that having been a sci-fi writer and having made that bet, he still managed to discover the Truth and that Scientology is completely valid.

No, his own words confirm the illegitimacy of the cult he started. Anyone who believes his text is believing in fiction - by the authors own characterization. It's a perfectly valid line of reasoning.

The Torah seems just as incredible as scientology to the non-Jew/Christian/Muslim.

No, the Torah is a core part of Christianity and a text partially respected by Islam. Furthermore, I would think even a person without a faith could put Scientology at the bottom of the list of legitimate belief systems because of the facts we know about it and its author.

Originally Posted by toothpick_charlie 

That's just glorified tribalism.

You can foreclose the possibility of love based on a tribalistic doctrine?

There are additional reasons why I would not marry outside my religion. For one, I want to see my children raised Jewish, and in intermarried families the fact is that the children are more often than not raised to be non-Jewish. Couple that with the statistic that intermarriage among Jews in America is over 50% and you realize that American Jews are marrying themselves out of existence. I also want to help perpetuate my religion into the future, given that Jews are a small fraction of the world's population. The only way I can possibly hope to do that is to marry a Jew and have Jewish children.

This is just what I'm getting at. You seem intelligent. How can you be so stupid?

Define it any way your narrow, bigoted mind wishes.

Religious beliefs like these are what must be overcome if the human race is to realise its highest intellectual and spiritual potentials.

Let me guess, are you German? That wording sounds very Teutonic, almost as if you ripped it out of the pages of Nietzsche. I'd also like to point out that the most notorious mass-murdering dictators in history were either atheists or adversarial to particular forms of religion. My religion teaches me to respect the preciousness of human life. I don't think you can say the same about your atheistic system of belief.

The belief set implied by your statement above—and others like it, flying whatever colors—is exclusionary, divisive, atavistic, anachronistic, eugenical, primitive and, ultimately, hostile to life itself.

Yes, it is exclusionary. Yes, it's atavistic. I'd even agree it's anachronistic. But eugenical, primitive and hostile? No. I'm not forcibly directing people to breed or not to breed. I am simply limiting my marital options based on certain principles. People select consorts based on various criteria, and I have given you some of mine. I'm sure you discriminate based on your own criteria of what is desirable to you. I am not hostile to non-Jewish women - I just consciously choose not to view them as viable candidates for me.

Content yourself with a place among the lower intellectual orders. The human future does not need you.

Who's truly being hostile here, and who's advocating Eugenics? You or I?

[ironknee]

people need religion cause they are afraid of death.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

No, his own words confirm the illegitimacy of the cult he started. Anyone who believes his text is believing in fiction - by the authors own characterization. It's a perfectly valid line of reasoning.

I agree with you that his words give us sufficient reason to doubt the legitimacy of his claims. They do not, however, disprove Scientology. Unless he's come out and said that Scientology is a work of fiction (which, to the best of my knowledge, he hasn't), nothing that he's said disproves Scientology, it merely gives us reason to be suspicious of his motivation.

Again, I agree with you that it's a load of crap. But if Moses had, prior to his encounter with the burning bush, been a fiction writer, would that cause you to doubt the things that he said and the motivations behind what he did? All I'm saying is that it's possible that Hubbard, having been a science fiction writer and made the statements about religion that we all know he made, was afterwards somehow inspired with some sort of divine Truth (well, divine wouldn't be the right word, but I think you see what I'm getting at). It's seems very unlikely, and clearly Hubbard had the literary talent to make it all up. But so did Moses have the ability to carve two stone tablets with ten rules on them while he was off by himself on top of a mountain.

No, the Torah is a core part of Christianity and a text partially respected by Islam. Furthermore, I would think even a person without a faith could put Scientology at the bottom of the list of legitimate belief systems because of the facts we know about it and its author.

I agree. My point about the Torah was that Jews, Christians, and Muslims all see it as valid. But there are plenty of people in this world who don't, and to them the Torah seems just as incredible and just as much a work of fiction as Scientology. The only difference is that the original writer(s) of the Torah are no longer around and there aren't any records of them saying the sorts of things that Hubbard said. Obscurity and history do not create credibility.

You seem to be ignoring the fact that to someone who doesn't believe in the Torah it is a work of fiction. There is nothing about it to distinguish it from the teachings of Scientology except Scientology's modernity and therefore the greater transparency of it's creation.

[Rumor]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Are you entirely sure that the society you were born into, which has its moral basis in what you call a "fantasy novel," did not influence your morality?

I was raised by an agnostic female and two non-religious gay males. Their lack of belief didn't affect their morals any either.

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

Huh? I was agreeing with you. I'm not religious, but it doesn't make the Wiccan Rede any less relevant. People should be able to do whatever they want as long as they're not hurting anyone. Seems like sound advice to me.

My mistake, too often in these types of conversation I get random quotes from the Bible and then the "see, you have the morals, you just have yet to accept Jesus" line.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I'd also like to point out that the most notorious mass-murdering dictators in history were either atheists or adversarial to particular forms of religion.

I'd like to see a list on this.

[zwiebel_]

Originally Posted by ironknee 

people need religion cause they are afraid of death.

"Ding, ding, ding"
And we have a winner

My religion says to live life now. Once you hit the dirt (or the cremation chamber) that is it for you.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by mac128k-1984 

By calling people stupid not a way to generate discussions.

Also by showing yourself closed minded and blinded it indicates that we who do believe in God, in particular in the Bible, cannot have an intelligent conversation with you.

I am an intelligent man, who has a number of collage degrees yet I have not needed to compartmentalize my mind. In fact if you read the Bible without making blind and ignorant ascertains you'll find that it actually makes sense.

If you cherry pick pieces of it it makes sense, but some parts make absolutely no sense at all (e.g. the age of the Earth, the amount of time it was created in, the Noah's Ark story, etc.)

And what is with those communion wafers and wine anyway? Does the representation of cannibalism not seem strange to some?

[Tiresias]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Let me guess, are you German? That wording sounds very Teutonic, almost as if you ripped it out of the pages of Nietzsche. I'd also like to point out that the most notorious mass-murdering dictators in history were either atheists or adversarial to particular forms of religion. My religion teaches me to respect the preciousness of human life. I don't think you can say the same about your atheistic system of belief.

Who's truly being hostile here, and who's advocating Eugenics? You or I?

You can't play the anti-Semite card because Jews are not unique in saying their religion is "more correct", and that—religious essentialism—is what I am opposed to, which includes pretty much every religion I can think of except Buddhism.

I am just dumbfounded that anyone could summarily dismiss marriage to someone based on the unknown person's religion. Love knows no such distinctions. They are human inventions.

And as far "perpetuating my race" goes, race is increasingly becoming a meaningless distinction:

[‘Biogeographical diversity’]
Modern genetic evidence demonstrates that [...] average genetic differences between races [...] do not map on to socially ascribed ‘racial’ divisions. Thus no racial distinction is drawn between the populations of north and south Wales, yet there are small genetic differences between the two. And conversely, genetically Polish Jews resemble their Catholic neighbours more closely than they do Jews from, say, Morocco. In fact, the overwhelming proportion of the genetic difference between individuals lies within rather than between so called races—leading most modern population biologists to discard as unhelpful the term race in the human context. The more useful, if ponderous, term is biogeographical diversity.

—Steven Rose, The 21st-Century Brain

But Big Mac, indulge me in a little thought experiment:

You fall unexpectedly, irrepressibly, and deeply in love with a Chinese person who practices Falun Gong. What do you do?

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by toothpick_charlie 

But Big Mac, indulge me in a little thought experiment:

You fall in unexpectedly, irrepressibly, and deeply in love with a Chinese person who practices Falun Gong. What do you do?

You make it sound like the person has no say in falling in love. I think I can control who I fall in love with.

[Tiresias]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

You make it sound like the person has no say in falling in love. I think I can control who I fall in love with.

If you can choose, it's not falling in love.

[Rumor]

Originally Posted by toothpick_charlie 

If you can choose, it's not falling in love.

He's got a point.