Is Atheism more peaceful than religion?

The obvious fact that most humans are too arrogant to admit is that we are animals and as animals violence is simply part of our nature, yes there are some individuals with enough self control to inhibit their violent sides for the most part we are a bunch of aggressive apes that are one bad day away from murder.

this.

Also

What do these have to do with anything?

Disagree. It's well known that how a child is raised affects how they behave later in life. If part of that development involves religion, then that religion will have an impact. Some religions are simply more peaceful than others. How many Buddhist or Jain terrorists or suicide bombers can you name? Now, compare that to Islam. There are plenty of instances of Muslims killing random people because someone drew a cartoon that their religion deems "offensive". In Buddhism or Jainism, even if someone is subjected to the worst persecution, they hardly even resort to violence against others. Fact is... religion matters, and some religions are worse than others.

In 1978 over 900 people died at Jonestown, either by suicide or murder. They were there because of religion. The murder/suicides had little to do with what individuals wanted and everything to do with what Jim Jones wanted and what he brainwashed people into doing because of his cult and the religious thinking that led his worshipers there. Those people were there because of religion, they believe and did whatever Jones said because of religion, and they all died because of religion.

The Westboro Baptist Church regularly promotes hatred and violence against anyone who doesnt agree with their religious views. Explain to me how that's not related to religion. Everything they do is because of religion.

As far as Islam... it's trivial to find the links between people's religious beliefs and violence.

And for raising children with religious indoctrination, it's easy to see how brainwashing kids from a young age with supernatural beliefs, hatred, and a mindset of violence will result in violent adults. Dont tell me this has nothing to do with religion. It has everything to do with religion. This is what happens when people think that having completely unfounded beliefs is perfectly fine and even a good thing, and that we have to respect all beliefs. No, we dont.

Meh, I don't know. With or without religion, people will always find something to argue about.

Exactly.

What's with all the freaking Atheism vs Religion threads?

@logy5000: religion is bad unless you havent noticed

"Religion" is a broad term. Atheism may be less violent then some beliefs, granted.

Throughout history religon has been more violent, but people nowadays are violent no matter what their belief is.

@warlock360: i have no idea, especially after hearing some people's examples of violent athiest. In the end, it depends on the individual.

That's simply not true. All you have to do is look at countries by how much religious belief they have, and you'll notice that the most peaceful countries are the least religious, and the most violent are the most religious. The correlation is pretty strong. Of course there are other factors that come into play, so drawing a causal conclusion is probably not possible. But, regardless, if I had to move to a country without knowing which one it was beforehand, but I had the choice of a predominantly atheist country as opposed to a predominantly religious one... there's no contest.

South Park actually made a parody of this very question. In the future, religion is no more, and everything is dedicated to scientific and rational thought. Yet still three opposing groups of Atheists are at war with one another as they have conflicting viewpoints to the answer of "The Great Question" which is something stupid (Which of the names that the atheist groups have is more practical).

As usual, South Park makes these crazy events into a satire basically saying whether it's religion or not, people will find reasons to kill one another, that's human nature. While humans exist, peace cannot.

Atheism more peaceful? No. Majority of the time on the net all I see atheists do is try to run down religion or anyone that's religious...Every where I see them it's like they've got nothing better to do with their spare time except criticize religion. Guess it's because they can't do it much in person so they feel safer doing it behind a computer screen..who knows, also no religion does not start all wars for the guy who said that earlier. Wars can be started over plenty of things..resources,expansion,and so on and so forth.

Too many of them

dU.Ub

As an atheist I'm tired of seeing these threads.

...the answer is no. Atheism isn't any more peaceful than religion.

Is there more violence driven by Religion, the answer would probably be yes. Unfortunately there are quite a few extremist groups out there within religions taking things to ridiculous levels. However when you balance that against things like Buddhists who are far more peaceful in the way they interact with the world than just about anyone, or other similar groups who dedicate themselves to the service and needs of others less fortunate they may come out more even.

Good point and good link. I would however point out the methodology and an inaccuracy it can lend to that link.

The pole asked about the importance of religion in day to day life, not whether they were of religious belief. For example my own country of Australia lists 32% as saying it is important. That's probably accurate but in the last two census' here the actual percentage of people with religious belief was 70 something and 81 (IIRC). Similarly Sweden was listed as 16.5% found it important, yet 94% of Swedes are I believe Evangelical Lutheran and only 3% of the country claim not to have a religion. Denamark had 18% where almost 80% are Lutheran, 5% Christian and 2% Islamic ( leaving only 13% atheist)

It's true that most Australians wouldn't give a damn what religion you belong to ( although I unfortunately see that changing a little because of fear and terrorism and the links being applied to a people as a whole rather than a small group of) nor would they allow it to control their daily lives.

What we can definitely say is that the degree to which religion dominates their daily lives certainly escalates the level of violence they are capable of.

People will always find a way to hate one another, regardless of whether or not religion plays a part in it.

Also, I would like to ask when did Atheism imply a rejection of religion altogether?

Atheism means a rejection of gods, not a rejection of the spiritual or the metaphysical.

It seems whoever created this thread doesn't have a firm understanding on what religion or atheism truly means.

Everyone is pointing to major Organized Religion as the evil of the world, without acknowledging how Organized Religion is not the sum of all religions.

The same applies to the fact that I don't instantly associate all atheists as being the following.

This thread feeds on stereotypes from both ends of the spectrum.

I dont think that religion always leads to violence. The examples of Buddhism and Jainism kind of prove that. But since we have religions like Islam that are highly correlated with violence and ones like Jainism that have high negative correlations... it does demonstrate that you can have violence tied to religion. It's not simply a matter of individuals, because then you'd have the same percentages of each religion being violence.

Where are these numbers from?

From my research... the numbers of non-believers in Sweden are much higher.

"According to Norris and Inglehart (2004), 64% of those in Sweden do not believe in God. According to Bondeson (2003), 74% of Swedes said that they did not believe in “a personal God.” According to Greeley (2003), 46% of Swedes do not believe in God, although only 17% self-identify as “atheist.” According to Froese (2001), 69% of Swedes are either atheist or agnostic. According to Gustafsoon and Pettersson (2000), 82% of Swedes do not believe in a “personal God.” According to Davie (1999), 85% of Swedes do not believe in God."

According to that same link, around 25% are atheists in Australia... at least in 2004. Might well be higher now.

I think it just depends on the religion.

What I think is that religion (religious thinking, faith-based thinking, etc) in general can lead to more violence (but not always). The reasons being that, 1) religion leads to tribal type behavior. Us versus them, we're right and they're not, we're the chosen ones and they're not,... etc. This inevitably leads to friction and conflict. 2) Religious thinking is faith-based, and not necessarily fact-based. What this means is that a religion might be perfectly good, but it can also be perfectly bad. If it is bad, there's no way for those inside to realize this. (i.e. cults like People's Temple, etc) If there was, if beliefs can be challenged with facts and logic, then we're not really talking about a "religion" per se. At least not the way I define religion, which is to say a religion is a set of beliefs that are not dependent on facts or logic. This could be about a god or gods, but it can also be about politics, sports,... you name it.

Theists = "Kill the infidels!"

Atheists = "I don't think you should kill me. I'd find that most unpleasant..."

“With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.” ~ Steven Weinberg

It's not a matter of atheist do bad things. People do bad things. It's to be expected that no matter what their beliefs there will always be people that will do evil, because people make mistakes, people have different perspectives, etc... but those people that would do good normally, those people can be persuaded more easily to do evil when they are made promises, threatened, and kept uneducated...

That's sort of why I wanted to post the Jesus Camp video (see up in the thread). It's a whole bunch of little kids basically being taught to be evil. Even if they dont end up that way, they are being abused and traumatized.

And, the thing about those Jesus Camp people is... they all think they're good people doing good things. I doubt any of them would think they're abusing kids, or teaching them evil things, or brainwashing them. This, is the power of religion. It can make good people do evil things, and you cant talk them out of it with reason or logic.

The term "religion" is far to general to accommodate the vast variations found within it to be of any use in such a question as found in the title of this thread. Simply the fact of the existence of certain elements of Islam or the Westboro Baptist Church would seem to make the entire concept indefensible. This basically renders any discussion moot.

And what exactly is athe-ism?

The "-ism" would seem to indicate a group or movement or collective.

I feel that it is pretty clear that athe-ists (at least those vocally represented on CV) see their position merely as whether or not they believe a God or gods exist (or perhaps by extension the entire concept of the supernatural) based upon their own individual understandings of how reality works.

So it seems to me at least that the use of that term is also not helpful for any meaningful discussion.

@willpayton: the figures for Australia were straight off the last two sensus ( both since 2004 as I have done two since my daughter was due and she was born in 06). The others were a google search two sites for Denmark and three for sweden and I took the lower figure for danes and middle figure for Swedes

when it comes to religions influencing violence I actually believe its the cultural influence on the religion nit the teaching of the relegion. if you actually look at the teachings of christianity, Islam and Judeism for example they teach tolerance and acceptance. yet cultural influences that have altered the base message say a completely different thing

@kuonphobos said:

We'll just go ahead and take what the bible says

Deuteronomy 17

If there be found among you, within any of thy gates which the LORD thy God giveth thee, man or woman, that hath wrought wickedness in the sight of the LORD thy God, in transgressing his covenant; 17:3 And hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded; 17:4 And it be told thee, and thou hast heard of it, and enquired diligently, and, behold, it be true, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought in Israel; 17:5 Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die.

Or in short... Anyone who doesn't believe like you... Kill them in one of the most brutal ways possible.

We don't need extremists or other religions... just the ability to read v.v

No and to say otherwise is to blind yourself to human nature. If it isn't religion it would be replaced for something else as an excuse. It's blindingly foolish to think otherwise.

You never hear in the news, "200 killed today when Atheist rebels took heavy shelling from the Agnostic stronghold in the north". ~ Doug Stanhope

In many cases I think that's true. Although, that's sort of the problem as well. You can take those religions and texts to mean anything as long as you cherry-pick stuff to justify what you want. If you are peaceful, then you read the peaceful stuff. If you're violent, you can find the violent stuff.

I mean, if I hate gay people, I can easily find stuff in the Bible to justify me killing gay people. If I'm pro-slavery, same thing. Lets not forget that Christians used the Bible to justify slavery in the past, the Church used the Bible to justify the Crusades and witch hunts and inquisitions.

The Muslims were the most scientifically advanced culture in the world until certain Islamic teachings took hold, at which point the whole culture became anti-science and backwards. Neil DeGrasse Tyson did a whole lecture on this. So, yes, culture can influence how a religion develops... that's true, but it can work the other way around as well.

This is one of the reasons the founding fathers of the U.S. wanted to keep religion out of the government. They wanted a secular country, even though many of them were Christians, at least in some way. (many were actually Deists, and hated organized religion) They knew that once you get religion in government, you get the problem of one religious group trying to oppress the others. They wanted freedom of religion and freedom from religion. If religion is inherently a good influence on societies, then we'd expect that countries with theocracies would be generally better than secular ones. But, that's not the case, but rather it's the other way around.

Pretty much. It's stuff like this that gives people the justification to do pretty much whatever they want. I mean, it's easy when your whole worldview is based on interpreting a bunch of stories written thousands of years ago by different people who knew less about how the universe works than a modern 10-year-old.

Sure, if you're a good and tolerant person then you probably ignore this, or pretend it was "written for different people in a different time"... as if that somehow justifies it... But, doenst that just prove that morality exists in spite of religion, and not because of it?

The closest to this we come is the sometimes heated debates we have in science. But, even in the worst of those, we never get close to physical violence. It just doenst happen, probably because scientists dont base their beliefs on capricious invisible supernatural entities that regularly commit mass murder.

@goldenstar66:

Yes, think of it this way people who believe in religion are like fanboys.

I think that completely depends on the religion. Since atheism has no common beliefs, goals, or scriptures; it is completely neutral to war and peace. I would assume therefore it generally is technically more peaceful as a rule than most organized religions, certainly more than most ancient religions, as most had a dedicated god of war, and more so than any of the three Judeo-Christian religions which all have texts that present certain sides in certain wars as just.

But there needs to be a distinction made between the religious texts and the followers of a religion. Many in the west like to point to Islam as a warlike religion, and therefore denounce all Muslims are warlike people. This is not the case, and most Muslims are as peaceful as most Christians, and both religions teach love as well as war. Atheists like to make the same claims of violence about all religious people. The fact is that human beings are violent by nature. Almost all living things are. Although most wars throughout history have been fought over religion, we as a species have frequently found other reasons to kill each other, and would continue to in absence of any religion.

I always find this threads interesting mainly from how people react to them. The way people reason and assert opinions, facts, assertions and all that. Or just read and react to others statements and opinions. Like I find it really fascinating how people differ. I don't really care as much for the question in the title of the thread, but I will try and answer it near the end of my post. Oh but I do find it an interesting question to ask, but there are also so many ways to interpret the question.

Like the thread asks 'Is Atheism more peaceful than religion?' but it does not assert Atheism as a religion. Possibly to some it could imply it, that would explain many of the posts making reference to it as not a religion or maybe that just explains some of the posts and the other posts referring to it as not a religion were just reacting to the other posts. Then the question of whether conflict occurs for reasons other than religious causes is quite a lot different than whether atheism or any religion is more peaceful than religion or another other religion. I am not entirely sure that making reference to other causes of conflict addresses the question asked, not that they are not interesting answers that are related to the thread topic, I after all am not addressing it directly yet either. Is water more healthy to drink than fruit juice from a supermarket? Actually people drink and eat a lot more foods than just water and fruit juice. Hey wait a minute, that doesn't actually answer the question heh heh - plus water is healthier in one sense, but a lot of the worlds water isn't safe to drink and actually kills so the answer likewise depends on the the interpretation of the question.

In a similar vein religious topics tends to bring out peoples sensitive, cautious side. Thats understandable, religious topics cover things like death and most of us probably have someone dear and near to us who have died. It also covers our morals and ethics and therefore choices and actions. It even shapes how we can see each other and how we view other peoples cynicism, optimism, tolerance, education, intelligence, kindness, and many other things potentially as well as it colors how we think other people see ourselves and others. As opposed to height for example. The question are people from Netherlands taller than people from Japan doesn't tend to illicit reactions like some people in Japan can be very tall, and I have met some short Dutch people. Nor attempts to 'lighten' the thread up. Naturally height is not only a less sensitive topic but its also a lot more simplistic in how we can measure, gauge and compare it and shortness and tallness are quite different from peace and conflict. That and people can be skeptical of such conversations which is also understandable.

I am not sure why people try to absolve religions of responsibility by shifting it to human nature or by incorrectly shifting some on to atheism. It is a part of human nature to be religious. Humans invented religion. Many peoples gods have been shown to come from directly inside their own brain but is understood and believed by that brain to be an external source. Religion plays a role here by making a virtue of faith. When you make a virtue of faith you run the very serious risk of empowering people to act on what they feel is the right thing to do, instead of questioning it and learning what the right thing to do is after reasoning, critical thinking, evidence gathering and consideration. Mentally unwell people have killed their children because they believed that god wanted them to heaven and that they were doing a good thing for their children. For other people who view heaven as a safety net, where they don't want to consciously fall off the tight rope but hopefully when they do they will be okay in the afterlife that act may be sickening but if the mentally unwell are told that all they need is faith and god then what? This should not mean religion or other religious people are blamed but there are responsibilities that people and organizations have to take on board when they make claims and faith is uniquely particular and has always been a tool and foundation for religions. People act on faith and religion often asks them to. This is why attempting to mention people like Stalin and Mao betrays a sense of knowledge of what drives and motivates people and how one can justify actions and behavior. Atheism like facial hair, like skin color, like religion, like nationality, like political affiliation, like height can be used as a basis for action or neutrality or justifier for a lack of action. Its why you can have an atheist rally today, not for people coming together because they necessary have a common belief, more ironically its because they lack a common belief in a world where such types of beliefs are prevalent. Except like the Atheist Plus people found out, trying to created an ideology around atheism won't work. Stalin and Mao actions being attributed to atheism is like their actions being attributed to people without Bieber Fever. You'll notice that Stalin and Mao weren't big fans of Justin Beiber right? Guess that means that people who aren't fans of Justin Beiber are not only as bad as Justin Bieber fanatics but way worse because they have actually killed billions of people are the regimes of two of the biggest Justin Bieber non fans around.

No religious person should feel bad for the actions of past religious atrocities either, just understand and acknowledge like any person should understand and acknowledge what counts for reason, thoughtfulness, understanding, evidence and how they interact with each other and how faith interacts with those things too. How emotions interact with those things too. Differences between what is considered subjective and open to interpretation and what is objective and less open. Now with that set up for the actual question...

Depends how we consider atheism, define peacefulness and consider religion. Many religions vary substantially in ideology, obligation, criteria and goals and practices. Think of Jainism and how the concept of Ahimsa plays its part. Atheism like anything that doesn't make assertions of how to act or behave is basically neutral. Is being dead more peaceful than religion? Kind of. Not counting zombies and vampires, but again sort of depends on the religion. Some religions may say be peaceful and respectful to all living things, love all living things without any of the caveats that some other religions may have (be peaceful to others, love others, but also know that you and others are sinners, some sinners will go to hell, and that its your duty to make sure others believe in and follow your god or else etc) so religions broadness and atheisms absence of criteria save for lacking a belief in a god or having the belief there are no gods makes the question a bit tricky. Oh and defining peace too. There is this thing called the Global Peace Index that attempts to assess and measure nations "peacefulness" I don't think its without some problems and criticisms but I also think it does an okay job. Most of the countries that rank as most peaceful are quite secular. Tolerant of religion and with religions but secular (fairly high averages for people who don't identify with religions as well) but I'd say thats probably a testament to education and quality and the ability for people to put aside their own religious views when dealing with other people of other religions and no religion that helps with peace rather than absence of religion.

What I've always found weird is that people assume that because the Bible has people murdering others clans/tribes for their religious affiliation that this automatically spurs violence in people. Honestly, the book was written thousands of years ago where such a thing was culturally and socially common and acceptable. It honestly takes a dimwit to take the entire bible literally and following it word for word.

As to whether or not atheism is more peaceful, it depends completely on the individual. It certainly holds true that they don't have a religious text that can be turned on its head, misinterpreted, and used to justify violence. So I'd take the position that an atheist has one less influential component in their lives to do bad and good.

You have evidently not understood my point. But I will try again.

Because there are so many variations which fall under the idea of "religion" it becomes a useless term in debates which attempt to make such claims and comparisons as the title of this thread. This lack of clarity then requires each person to "fill in the blank" regarding what they mean when they use the term "religion". You point out the Deut passage, WillPayton points out Jainism and Buddhism, I point out Islamic extremism and Westboro BC, King Saturn points out the KKK.....

blah blah blah......wokka wokka wokka.....

still moot...

I tried to edit this into my previous comment but apparently the ongoing hate affair between CV and IE has once again prevented me.....

I did have a few questions which have been percolating for some time and this thread (as nebulous and over generalized as it may be) perhaps presents an opportunity.

Is it possible for a group/collective/nation to arise which holds to an atheist view concerning God/gods? As a majority?

If so, would any legislation composed by this group which specifically develops from its core atheist presuppositions also be called "atheist"? For example, should a group in power be able to legislate the dissolution of home schools which teach both from science and from biblical ethics based solely upon it's own presup of atheism in regards to education from the bible?

Is it possible for a group to rise (small group or nation) which holds to an atheistic view concerning God/gods to gain enough influence to legislate the persecution of groups with which it disagrees (upon the basis of it's atheist perspective)? For example banning churches, mosques, and temples or Imprisoning, torturing or killing religious persons or leaders?

I realize that atheists do not operate in vacuums any more than non-atheists do. I realize that there are other motivations for violence, war and atrocity such as greed, power, lust, sex and just plain ol' human nature. What seems to be implied in the vague opening question however is after weeding out "neutral" motivations shared by all human beings when people act from an atheist presupposition concerning God/gods are they more or less violent that when others act from "supernatural" presuppositions.

At least that is how I understand it.

And to be clear, I have not at any point offered my own answer to what I understand is the opening question.

Except that at base we're pretty sure religion was used to control people, whether for good or ill, and that in itself is not peaceful.

@sc said:

Great post as usual :)

I think an important factor is education and understanding in regards to religion and how we perceive it. And as we know more and more does religion become less relevant? I mean at a time not too long if you look at it in the grand scheme of things the worlds major religions were followed and respected and upheld by nearly everyone. But now we look at them (at least some people) and we critique them and realize that they should not be simply followed, upheld and respected but given the same treatment we do with other things, questioned and critiqued and argued over. I think that is because we know more, we can know more than what these religions simply tell us what we should know.

Of course there are many people who are religious who hate the idea of their religious belief being questioned and critiqued. All I have to say in that regard is don't question or critique or think over your beliefs you are free to do that. But that does not stop me from doing so. Again religion seems to insist a higher respect of sorts, that it is somehow a more sensitive issue than say politics. Now I have had people say to me that religion should not be debated over and people should "respect" it regardless if you are religious or not. Which is obviously bull crap. And actually being more open and able to discuss such topics as religion is a good thing. Such topics that are posted here (which again is a reason I like comic vine, that it allows people to discuss these topics if they want to) I see it often people post inane comments like "this is not going to end well" or something of the like. And actually as I have said in the past all you have to do is look at the religion thread, it has being here for over five years. And the discussion that goes on in it is relatively free and open minded (you don't have people worried about "respecting" religious beliefs) and the majority of the time it is pretty civil.

I agree that it does depend on how exactly we define peaceful here. I mean as I said in my initial post that because being an atheist is simply a lack of belief in gods. You can fill the rest of what you think in when you aren't religious because you don't have this big block of dogma that you have to move any new opinions you get around that. It allows you to be more free with your views. But again does that constitute as peace? Peace of mind maybe. For me personally it allows me that. But I don't think that is what the OP was intending when they said peace. And no one else apart from myself really touched upon that.

I think he does mean in regards to maybe going out and killing people. Well then atheism is more peaceful because it is simply a lack of belief in gods. I liked your analogy that being dead is more peaceful than religion ha ha. I think the question would have being better phrased in a different way. I mean I also understand and agree that religion does harm and it does make people do things that they would never even conceive of doing otherwise. Which is why I agreed with @willpayton s post.

Also you mentioned Atheism plus, not a big fan of them at all to be honest. And also you mentioned in that "Do you believe in Aliens?" thread that you do prefer conversation over when people just say that they agree with your posts. I know I do quote your posts saying that I agree with them. And don't always respond to them like I have here. I do when I have time and when I have something more to say on the matter like in this instance. (I hope you can get back to my question on that alien thread too sometime :) unless of course you already have and the inbox system is on the blink again, which is hardly surprising >_> :) )

@sc: The other problem with saying Stalin and Mao were atheists and blaming their actions on atheism and not on "religion" is that that is inaccurate. Stalin and Mao were both religionists... They both lead cults of personality. They may have been atheists themselves, but Atheism and Religion are not opposites, and one could press the issue and try to argue that they both tried to deify themselves and thus they would be considered theists too...

Well, considering I am going to "hell" by the major religions - a place of eternal suffering - solely for not believing in a god, a lack of belief in a god suits me fine.

I find this to be a very pleasant, very peaceful mindset.

Same thing with N. Korea, it's a cult of personality, which is used by the leaders to control the population and instill a tribal, adversarial relationship with other nations. In that case it just happens that instead of "Pope" or "Imam" it's "Dear Leader" or "Great Leader".

In a sense it's like blaming science because the Nazis used a version of Social Darwinism to back up their ideologies. Problem is that there's nothing in science that creates or promotes those ideas, science was only used as a tool and an excuse. Same with atheism in the former Soviet Union.

Now, no doubt one can use religion as an excuse for violence or totalitarian control as well... and has been many times. But, what's the difference between religion and science or atheism? Well, various things... 1) most religions are authority-driven systems, which easily lend themselves to abuse. 2), Religions are normally based on belief in things that are irrational (supernatural, gods, afterlife, miracles, etc) and emotion-based, and hence cannot be disproved by evidence or logic, so again cannot be countered when false beliefs arise. Also, 3) religions promote the idea that the followers are in some way "chosen" or "special" in relation to everyone else, which creates an "us versus them" mentality, that creates intolerance, suspicion, and inevitably conflict with other groups.

For those reasons, religions are uniquely suited to creating and promoting (often false) beliefs and then leading their followers to act on those. When those beliefs are harmless, or even beneficial, everything is ok. But, when those beliefs are harmful, we end up with Westboro Church, People's Temple, and the Salem Witch Trials.

Good point.

I think that touches on the point I made earlier.