Atheism

[Husker_x]

The following was a post directed at me by Ponderosa. Most of it is unrelated to the previous thread or contains personal questions about my belief system, etc., so I thought it would be a good idea to start a new thread.

You must be a philosophy major.

No, I'm not, but I think the question of God is the most interesting topic in existence, and it spans history, philosophy, science, and sociology, so it allows you to explore a number of fields. I've felt and continue to feel enriched by the study.

It seems as if the words (a & a) are so over defined as to have virtually no meaning or at least no utility. Perhaps that is the intent (not a personal dig) of the authors.

Anyway, for a simple message board I'm still thinkin' agnostic covers it. Also thinkin' that your definition of atheist – is missing a critical element. God may well exist but you do not like any of the current ummm…versions? But no matter.

The definitions I presented are the working definitions for every intellectually active atheist I've come across. The only people I know about that use your model are Christian apologists, for no other reason it seems than to shift the burden of proof by misdiagnosing their opponent's position and pretending that they have made a positive claim. Maybe it would help to think of it as a simple question, like one that would be used in a debate format. "Do you believe God exists?" A theist would say that God does exist, and would even go further and say that he/she/it is active in the world. An atheist would respond that he doesn't believe God exists, but that's not the same as saying that you know he doesn't. A claim has been made by theists––whether Christians, Jews, Muslims, or Hindus––that God or gods exist. It is a positive claim. My position is that your claim has not been sufficiently demonstrated, therefore I lack a belief in your claim, like I lack a belief in aliens, or bigfoot, or any other extraordinary claim. But I don't pretend to know they don't or can't exist.

I do not know you and have only read some of your postings. So please forgive me if I am overly broad. But you seem to be a former Christian and now are neutral(ish) regarding god(s)?

Also, I've noticed you tend to initiate and lead the threads. Managing to avoid stating your positions and dodging questions.

If I'm wrong about the dodging bit - all the better.

I am an ex-Christian. My deconversion, like most, was very hard and painful. Religious belief for most people is ingrained in you from the time you were born. It's a central part of your intellectual makeup, and informs a lot more than just your belief about heaven. It creates and sustains a large portion of your worldview; for some people it is their entire worldview. I have no issue with people believing in God, but since one tenant of most major religions is evangelism in some form, relies on faith as opposed to evidence and inquiry, and is seen everywhere in our society, it seems to me it might be an issue worth discussing. What do we really know about the existence of God, for starters? And how do we know what we think we know?

Atheism isn't really a position. It's a reaction to a preexisting position, as I've tried to explain. Because of that nothing else that I believe is really relevant to atheism. Evolution, humanism, rationalism, skepticism, anti-theism, etc. are often times associated with atheists, and many atheists subscribe to them, but they're separate issues. I don't know what questions I've dodged. I try to answer everything as best I can, but if you think there's something I've avoided, feel free to let me know and I'll give it a whack.

So my questions to you…what would you need to see, feel, hear, touch…experience to believe in God?
Also, what standard of proof do you need?

1. Air of reality - only having the traces of truth

2. Preponderance of the evidence - it is more likely than not

3. Clear and convincing evidence - it is substantially more likely than not

4. Beyond a reasonable doubt - no reasonable doubt could be raised

5. Beyond the shadow of a doubt - no doubt whatsoever could be raised

How much thought have you given the above subject?

If by God you mean your god, the Christian God, then it wouldn't really matter what my answer to the questions above are or even if I had an answer at all, he still knows even if I don't what it would take to convince me. One of the perks of omniscience. He also could have created our species with the ingrained knowledge––not just suspicion––of him and the ability to communicate with him and understand his desires. Instead what we find is exactly what we'd expect if we were a highly evolved primate trying to make sense out of why the sun goes down or how we happened to come upon this hunk of rock whizzing through space.

But I'll answer the question anyway. Beyond a shadow of doubt is meaningless to me. Everything is doubtable. Doubt is my product, as a matter of fact. Every conclusion we draw via scientific naturalism is tentative and subject to change. But that being said, here's one example. Some Christians claim that they have or that someone has magical powers of healing. If we arranged an experiment where an amputee was brought in under controlled conditions in a double-blind study, and the Christian were to put out his hand and heal him by what he claimed was the power of Christ, that would be a damn fine start towards convincing me. If he then walked down the street and preformed the feat again with a different subject and a different team of scientists, we're really getting somewhere now. But this is selling your God short, really. According to your book he used to be a man about town. He was chatting it up with Hebrew-Egyptian princes, manifesting himself left and right, performing miracles, sending powerful wizards, etc. Curiously it stopped before mankind developed the technology to verify or repeat the wonders. What's even worse is these kinds of stories are present in virtually every culture, and many of the stories contained in your book have precedent elsewhere.

Perhaps God's existence is simply unprovable?Or is it just not really your responsibility (as a human) to figure out? That would be God's job.

Perhaps it is. I haven't tried to prove it one way or the other, except the say that the proofs I've seen so far have been fallacious or unconvincing. But if it is God's job, I'd prefer not to be sent to hell because he didn't do it.

I won't quote the Bible to you, as you seem to know that quite well.

For my money Ecclesiastes is one of the finest pieces of world literature. Breathlessly amazing read.

I'm just curious - not looking for a particular answer.You seem to have very strong opinions and are willing to share them.

On his deathbed Socrates said, "The unexamined life is not worth living." I'm a bit of a contrarian by nature. Not always a helpful character trait, but in my experience everything that has changed my worldview at a fundamental level has come very hard, and I've learned so much from people who didn't hold back what they thought or why they thought it. The one thing I try to do is keep the argument on the issue, not the person. With religion it's more challenging, because for some religion IS the person, and there's no way around offense. But if it helps anyone reading this, the first time when I as a Christian ran across someone who not only didn't share my faith, but thought it was a tremendously terrible and harmful thing, it was a huge shock to the system. But it was that shock in part that forced me to reexamine myself. As soon as I turned the same critical eye that I'd used for a long time to deconstruct other religions, I came to see there was some truth to what my sparring partners had been saying.

Hope this overlong post answered the questions. I'd be happy to answer others from anyone else. I'll simply close by reiterating that in my way of thinking, I'm persuadable. I care about whether or not my beliefs are true. But nothing is taboo.

 

[zoogs]

Atheism isn't really a position. It's a reaction to a preexisting position, as I've tried to explain. Because of that nothing else that I believe is really relevant to atheism.

You put that better than I ever could have. Thanks for clarifying all of your positions; it's been a very insightful read.

 

[Ponderosa]

My position is that your claim has not been sufficiently demonstrated, therefore I lack a belief in your claim, like I lack a belief in aliens, or bigfoot, or any other extraordinary claim. But I don't pretend to know they don't or can't exist. [Note: added for clarification but not quoted by zoogies]

...

Atheism isn't really a position. It's a reaction to a preexisting position, as I've tried to explain. Because of that nothing else that I believe is really relevant to atheism.

You put that better than I ever could have. Thanks for clarifying all of your positions; it's been a very insightful read.

This could be a very short thread,

because I am not making a claim and I agree with your conclusion.

Theists should prove the existence of god and their god in particular.

 

[Ponderosa]

If by God you mean your god, the Christian God, then it wouldn't really matter what my answer to the questions above are or even if I had an answer at all, he still knows even if I don't what it would take to convince me. One of the perks of omniscience. He also could have created our species with the ingrained knowledge––not just suspicion––of him and the ability to communicate with him and understand his desires. Instead what we find is exactly what we'd expect if we were a highly evolved primate trying to make sense out of why the sun goes down or how we happened to come upon this hunk of rock whizzing through space.
But I'll answer the question anyway. Beyond a shadow of doubt is meaningless to me. Everything is doubtable. Doubt is my product, as a matter of fact. Every conclusion we draw via scientific naturalism is tentative and subject to change. But that being said, here's one example. Some Christians claim that they have or that someone has magical powers of healing. If we arranged an experiment where an amputee was brought in under controlled conditions in a double-blind study, and the Christian were to put out his hand and heal him by what he claimed was the power of Christ, that would be a damn fine start towards convincing me. If he then walked down the street and preformed the feat again with a different subject and a different team of scientists, we're really getting somewhere now. But this is selling your God short, really. According to your book he used to be a man about town. He was chatting it up with Hebrew-Egyptian princes, manifesting himself left and right, performing miracles, sending powerful wizards, etc. Curiously it stopped before mankind developed the technology to verify or repeat the wonders. What's even worse is these kinds of stories are present in virtually every culture, and many of the stories contained in your book have precedent elsewhere.

See this is where things get off track.

I am not asking about my god, or the Christian God. I'm not trying to convert you.

The question is meant to be as "unloaded" as possible.

Your god or gods. Zeus, Jesus, the spaghetti monster, the Force (Star Wars).

Just a god. Generic god.

What is in your brain? Not what Christians ancient or present have or have not done.

So I'll ask again…what would you need to see, feel, hear, touch…experience to believe in God?

The definitions I presented are the working definitions for every intellectually active atheist I've come across. The only people I know about that use your model are Christian apologists, for no other reason it seems than to shift the burden of proof by misdiagnosing their opponent's position and pretending that they have made a positive claim. Maybe it would help to think of it as a simple question, like one that would be used in a debate format. "Do you believe God exists?" A theist would say that God does exist, and would even go further and say that he/she/it is active in the world. An atheist would respond that he doesn't believe God exists, but that's not the same as saying that you know he doesn't. A claim has been made by theists––whether Christians, Jews, Muslims, or Hindus––that God or gods exist. It is a positive claim. My position is that your claim has not been sufficiently demonstrated, therefore I lack a belief in your claim, like I lack a belief in aliens, or bigfoot, or any other extraordinary claim. But I don't pretend to know they don't or can't exist.

I'm a layman and I've never heard of this model before today. And my intent is not to shift the burden or trap you in any manner.

You are anticipating a quesion and answering it, instead of the question at hand.

Just a simple question. And you've answered it.

You don't know. And the affirmative has not been answered to your satisfaction.

 

[Husker_x]

If by God you mean your god, the Christian God, then it wouldn't really matter what my answer to the questions above are or even if I had an answer at all, he still knows even if I don't what it would take to convince me. One of the perks of omniscience. He also could have created our species with the ingrained knowledge––not just suspicion––of him and the ability to communicate with him and understand his desires. Instead what we find is exactly what we'd expect if we were a highly evolved primate trying to make sense out of why the sun goes down or how we happened to come upon this hunk of rock whizzing through space.
But I'll answer the question anyway. Beyond a shadow of doubt is meaningless to me. Everything is doubtable. Doubt is my product, as a matter of fact. Every conclusion we draw via scientific naturalism is tentative and subject to change. But that being said, here's one example. Some Christians claim that they have or that someone has magical powers of healing. If we arranged an experiment where an amputee was brought in under controlled conditions in a double-blind study, and the Christian were to put out his hand and heal him by what he claimed was the power of Christ, that would be a damn fine start towards convincing me. If he then walked down the street and preformed the feat again with a different subject and a different team of scientists, we're really getting somewhere now. But this is selling your God short, really. According to your book he used to be a man about town. He was chatting it up with Hebrew-Egyptian princes, manifesting himself left and right, performing miracles, sending powerful wizards, etc. Curiously it stopped before mankind developed the technology to verify or repeat the wonders. What's even worse is these kinds of stories are present in virtually every culture, and many of the stories contained in your book have precedent elsewhere.

See this is where things get off track.

I am not asking about my god, or the Christian God. I'm not trying to convert you.

The question is meant to be as "unloaded" as possible.

Your god or gods. Zeus, Jesus, the spaghetti monster, the Force (Star Wars).

Just a god. Generic god.

What is in your brain? Not what Christians ancient or present have or have not done.

So I'll ask again…what would you need to see, feel, hear, touch…experience to believe in God?

You've asked an unanswerable question. When theists or even deists come with their pitch, I line them up in a row to find out what they're selling. Then I decide whether or not to buy. I don't define their god for them. I don't have one of my own to compare it against. I couldn't say what it would take to convince me until you've told me what you're trying to convince me of.

What would it take to convince you of a Skoopwind Farzlenogger? What's in your brain regarding a Skoopwind Farzlenogger? What would you need to see, feel, hear, touch, experience to believe in a Skoopwind Farzlenogger, a generic Skoopwind Farzlenogger?

 

[Ponderosa]

What would it take to convince you of a Skoopwind Farzlenogger? What's in your brain regarding a Skoopwind Farzlenogger? What would you need to see, feel, hear, touch, experience to believe in a Skoopwind Farzlenogger, a generic Skoopwind Farzlenogger?

Now you're just getting snotty and evasive. I knew it wouldn't last.

So some made up word is equivalent to the concept of god? Thousands of years of...oh never mind.

Good night.

 

[Husker_x]

Ponderosa, you can't honestly tell me you didn't see the point in there? The point is that until you define what you're talking about there is no way anyone could possibly conclude what it would take to convince them whether or not it exists. You seem to be laboring under a severe misapprehension that 'god' is some easily-accessed concept shared by all people through this 'thousands of years of...." I'd sleep on that one too if I were you. I asked your questions back at you and replaced one undefined concept with another. Nothing snarky or evasive about it.

Jesus, Brahman, a deist god, and the Force are not equivalent claims which could even be expected to have the same evidentiary base. In fact, only THEISTIC gods are purported to have done anything since the universe began. If god is in fact active in the universe, I've already answered your question when I gave you an example of miracles that could be preformed under control conditions that would at least begin to provide evidence and a reasonable basis for claiming there's something under the atoms. However, if the god is DEISTIC, and is not active in the universe, there seems to be no possible way I could come to believe in him, and any belief I might profess would be blind speculation on my part.

 

[Manhattan]

What would it take to convince you of a Skoopwind Farzlenogger? What's in your brain regarding a Skoopwind Farzlenogger? What would you need to see, feel, hear, touch, experience to believe in a Skoopwind Farzlenogger, a generic Skoopwind Farzlenogger?

Now you're just getting snotty and evasive. I knew it wouldn't last.

So some made up word is equivalent to the concept of god? Thousands of years of...oh never mind.

Good night.

Of what?

Of nature and science pointing up the follies of organized religion? Of fear used to suppress peasants and convince them to go to war?

EDIT: Or let me put it another way: There are world religions that have been around longer than Christianity with billions of followers. You can't all be right. At some point, most will have to concede that they have been wrong for "thousands of years", and eventually, the last one will concede to that too.

 

[Ponderosa]

Ponderosa, you can't honestly tell me you didn't see the point in there? The point is that until you define what you're talking about there is no way anyone could possibly conclude what it would take to convince them whether or not it exists. You seem to be laboring under a severe misapprehension that 'god' is some easily-accessed concept shared by all people through this 'thousands of years of...." I'd sleep on that one too if I were you. I asked your questions back at you and replaced one undefined concept with another. Nothing snarky or evasive about it.

Jesus, Brahman, a deist god, and the Force are not equivalent claims which could even be expected to have the same evidentiary base. In fact, only THEISTIC gods are purported to have done anything since the universe began. If god is in fact active in the universe, I've already answered your question when I gave you an example of miracles that could be preformed under control conditions that would at least begin to provide evidence and a reasonable basis for claiming there's something under the atoms. However, if the god is DEISTIC, and is not active in the universe, there seems to be no possible way I could come to believe in him, and any belief I might profess would be blind speculation on my part.

Something that seemed like a personal swipe - one moment I'm "…laboring under a severe misapprehension that 'god' is some easily-accessed concept shared by all people…"

The next moment you're scolding and lecturing "Jesus, Brahman, a deist god, and the Force are not equivalent claims...".

 

Amusingly, I am both too narrow and too broad at the same time. How that's possible, when I was asking for your definition - not presenting one, I'll never know.

 

And yeah, yeah. I got the point. If I've heard it once, I've heard it a 100 times. It is pure evasion. I don't need to define it - I am asking for your opinion.

The analogy fails at the most basic level you just said "I think the question of God is the most interesting topic in existence".

You know the subject, you study it, you're a former Christian, you debate the subject. You're aware of multiple definitions. Don't get cute.

 

I am not selling and you're not buying. Again, use your definition (or lack thereof), not mine: God(s) exists, god never existed and never will, feign that you've never heard the word - whatever.

Don't care. Answer in whatever manner you wish, include religion or no. And you have...

 

You have an open mind. But unfortunately there are no acceptable proofs and never can be.

Personally witnessing a series of 'miracles' in a controlled enviroment might, might be accepted.

But only as a first step and even then it would probably be viewed as an evolutionary adaption.

 

[Ponderosa]

What would it take to convince you of a Skoopwind Farzlenogger? What's in your brain regarding a Skoopwind Farzlenogger? What would you need to see, feel, hear, touch, experience to believe in a Skoopwind Farzlenogger, a generic Skoopwind Farzlenogger?

Now you're just getting snotty and evasive. I knew it wouldn't last.

So some made up word is equivalent to the concept of god? Thousands of years of...oh never mind.

Good night.

Of what?

Of nature and science pointing up the follies of organized religion? Of fear used to suppress peasants and convince them to go to war?

EDIT: Or let me put it another way: There are world religions that have been around longer than Christianity with billions of followers. You can't all be right. At some point, most will have to concede that they have been wrong for "thousands of years", and eventually, the last one will concede to that too.

Nope not religion. Just god(s).

Thousands of years of debate, contemplation, discussion, and writings regarding god.

I'm pretty sure Husker_x just made up or found the words Skoopwind Farzlenogger.

As imprecise as language is - god is sufficiently defined for a person to understand the word in their own context. Even if the existence of god is rejected.

I can drag out the tree analogy if you wish.

I gather you're not a huge fan of religion?

 

[Husker_x]

sh#t, I wrote out a long response and my internet died. :facepalm:

I'll see if I can try it again.

 

[Ponderosa]

sh#t, I wrote out a long response and my internet died.

I'll see if I can try it again.

No worries - I'll catch ya tomorrow.

 

[Husker_x]

Ponderosa, you can't honestly tell me you didn't see the point in there? The point is that until you define what you're talking about there is no way anyone could possibly conclude what it would take to convince them whether or not it exists. You seem to be laboring under a severe misapprehension that 'god' is some easily-accessed concept shared by all people through this 'thousands of years of...." I'd sleep on that one too if I were you. I asked your questions back at you and replaced one undefined concept with another. Nothing snarky or evasive about it.

Jesus, Brahman, a deist god, and the Force are not equivalent claims which could even be expected to have the same evidentiary base. In fact, only THEISTIC gods are purported to have done anything since the universe began. If god is in fact active in the universe, I've already answered your question when I gave you an example of miracles that could be preformed under control conditions that would at least begin to provide evidence and a reasonable basis for claiming there's something under the atoms. However, if the god is DEISTIC, and is not active in the universe, there seems to be no possible way I could come to believe in him, and any belief I might profess would be blind speculation on my part.

Something that seemed like a personal swipe - one moment I'm "…laboring under a severe misapprehension that 'god' is some easily-accessed concept shared by all people…"

The next moment you're scolding and lecturing "Jesus, Brahman, a deist god, and the Force are not equivalent claims...".

 

Amusingly, I am both too narrow and too broad at the same time. How that's possible, when I was asking for your definition - not presenting one, I'll never know.

 

And yeah, yeah. I got the point. If I've heard it once, I've heard it a 100 times. It is pure evasion. I don't need to define it - I am asking for your opinion.

The analogy fails at the most basic level – you just said "I think the question of God is the most interesting topic in existence".

You know the subject, you study it, you're a former Christian, you debate the subject. You're aware of multiple definitions. Don't get cute.

 

I am not selling and you're not buying. Again, use your definition (or lack thereof), not mine: God(s) exists, god never existed and never will, feign that you've never heard the word - whatever.

Don't care. Answer in whatever manner you wish, include religion or no. And you have...

 

You have an open mind. But unfortunately there are no acceptable proofs and never can be.

Personally witnessing a series of 'miracles' in a controlled enviroment might, might be accepted.

But only as a first step and even then it would probably be viewed as an evolutionary adaption.

I haven't evaded anything. I'm trying to understand your question, which up until now hasn't been phrased clearly. As much as I'd like to telepathically be able to untie knots, I'm not that smart. But I'm not scolding you, or taking personal swipes, or angry, or anything at all. The problem is when we have these kinds of discussions on the internet, I can't interrupt you mid-sentence to ask you to clarify. We have to start over every time something is unclear. So I guess we'll try again.

To start we, we both agree that there are different kinds of gods, and therefore different god-claims. As an atheist who at present lacks a belief in a god, I have the task of examining them to see if there's any merit to the case. Two of the main kinds are theistic claims and deistic claims. But these are general. Beneath them are subsets like: god is transcendent, god is in everything, the universe is god, gods live on mountaintops, etc., etc., ad infinitum. The question, "What would it take for you to believe in a god" is a fair, honest, and challenging questions––provided we first sort out which claim we're dealing with. Again, the atheist position is a lack of belief in any god or form of god, so I don't have a working definition. I have to deal with them as they come.

If, for instance, the claim was about Zeus, I would probably climb to the top of Mount Olympus to see if he's there. If he is, and throws a thunderbolt to confirm it, you bet your a$$ I believe in a god. But if the god is a deist deity who only ever spun up the universe and afterward chose to remain hidden, my puny mortal brain lacks the tools to uncover what a supreme being has hidden. The thing doesn't want to be found, and any claim I might make in its favor even if eventually proven correct somehow would amount to nothing but a lucky guess based on blind speculation, not a reasoned conclusion.

As for the Christian God, believers of all stripes are fond of telling me what he does or did or will do and under what conditions. Apparently he answers prayers, sometimes speaks in an audible voice, heals the sick, raises the dead, and bestows his chosen people with powers to cast out demons (which are lifelike phantoms), predict the future, understand languages they've never learned, and other miraculous feats. Any of these can be demonstrated in controlled experiments, but all of them seem to have curiously stopped happening, or only happen in shoddy tents in the backwoods of Alabama. The potential manifestations of a theistic god are so numerous that I couldn't even begin to describe all the evidences that would make a belief in him/her/it reasonable, even if he is invisible to the naked eye. And the miracles I listed are among the more paltry attempts an omnipotent being could devise. We could all of us, every member of the human race, have a shared psychic experience where a foreign voice entered our collective minds and revealed his existence, explaining how we could access it and what we should expect to learn that we don't already know about science, philosophy, the future, the reason for our existence. I could literally go on forever.

Absolute certainty is probably beyond us, but just because I'm not absolutely certain that you're a human being doesn't mean that I'm justified in claiming that you're actually an advanced form of artificial intelligence currently running a mind-enhacning philosophy program in the basement of a Barnes and Noble.

 

[Manhattan]

What would it take to convince you of a Skoopwind Farzlenogger? What's in your brain regarding a Skoopwind Farzlenogger? What would you need to see, feel, hear, touch, experience to believe in a Skoopwind Farzlenogger, a generic Skoopwind Farzlenogger?

Now you're just getting snotty and evasive. I knew it wouldn't last.

So some made up word is equivalent to the concept of god? Thousands of years of...oh never mind.

Good night.

Of what?

Of nature and science pointing up the follies of organized religion? Of fear used to suppress peasants and convince them to go to war?

EDIT: Or let me put it another way: There are world religions that have been around longer than Christianity with billions of followers. You can't all be right. At some point, most will have to concede that they have been wrong for "thousands of years", and eventually, the last one will concede to that too.

Nope not religion. Just god(s).

Thousands of years of debate, contemplation, discussion, and writings regarding god.

I'm pretty sure Husker_x just made up or found the words Skoopwind Farzlenogger.

As imprecise as language is - god is sufficiently defined for a person to understand the word in their own context. Even if the existence of god is rejected.

I can drag out the tree analogy if you wish.

I gather you're not a huge fan of religion?

Sort of. It is hard for me to accept the existence of a God, but I value my religious upbringing for the cultural and traditional sense of it and how it has defined me and my family, but that's as far as it goes. I think religion has worn out its usefulness and that my generation is probably going to be the last religious generation.

 

[Ponderosa]

I haven't evaded anything. I'm trying to understand your question, which up until now hasn't been phrased clearly. As much as I'd like to telepathically be able to untie knots, I'm not that smart. But I'm not scolding you, or taking personal swipes, or angry, or anything at all. The problem is when we have these kinds of discussions on the internet, I can't interrupt you mid-sentence to ask you to clarify. We have to start over every time something is unclear. So I guess we'll try again.

I re-read the posts. I think perhaps you may have added layers that weren't there.

Ponderosa: So my questions to you…what would you need to see, feel, hear, touch…experience to believe in God?
Husker_x: If by God you mean your god, the Christian God...

And wham! We're off to the races. Even the second paragraph reference Christianity.

Perhaps it justified, more efficient but I think you jump to conclusions.

Turnabout is fair. What phrasing would have made my initial question clear (to an a-a)?

Or is it just the nature of the beast and re-stating is requirement?

So what book(s) or author would best encapsulate your views?

If we are ever in Lincoln at the same time - I'll buy the first round.