I know this has most likely been posted before, but

[Mister E]

Surely the logical outcome of contemplating whether any form of God can exist or not should leave atheists agnostic (using the cosmological argument of an "uncaused first cause" and the fact that we don't know whether the universe will eventually collapse in on itself meaning we cannot be certain that infinite regress is possible). So how can one be absolutely atheist?

[Goat]

Surely the logical outcome of contemplating whether any form of God can exist or not should leave atheists agnostic (using the cosmological argument of an "uncaused first cause" and the fact that we don't know whether the universe will eventually collapse in on itself meaning we cannot be certain that infinite regress is possible). So how can one be absolutely atheist?

I think it is very unlikely for anybody to be an 'absolutely atheist'. The problem with the 'uncaused first cause' as evidence of God is that it is the logical fallacy known as 'special pleading.'. However, I suspect that except for the most stubborn, the view point of most agnostics/atheists would be that there is insufficient information to accept any God/Gods.

[JoeyKnothead]

I claim 'atheist' in response to claims for gods I'm aware of. If asked to clarify, I will admit to agnostic probably being more accurate. If pushed on the issue I will revert back to atheism, as I'm more certain no gods exist than I'm convinced I can't know or that gods do exist.

[bernee51]

Surely the logical outcome of contemplating whether any form of God can exist or not should leave atheists agnostic (using the cosmological argument of an "uncaused first cause" and the fact that we don't know whether the universe will eventually collapse in on itself meaning we cannot be certain that infinite regress is possible). So how can one be absolutely atheist?

as an atheist, i.e one who does not hold a god belief, it is not up to me to define what is meant by the term. For all concepts of god with which I have so far been presented I can confidently claim to be ‘absolutely atheist’.

For the concept of god as being an entity that kicked of existence then, for all intents and purposes, disappeared having nothing further to do wit its creation, then I am somewhat agnostic. Even with that I tend toward atheism as I see existence not as something with a beginning and end – that is an all to human concept – but as an eternally emergent ‘now’. As I have oft stated, there is no reason, for me at least, not to believe that the universe will and has, in some shape or form, always exist(ed).

[Mister E]

Surely the logical outcome of contemplating whether any form of God can exist or not should leave atheists agnostic (using the cosmological argument of an "uncaused first cause" and the fact that we don't know whether the universe will eventually collapse in on itself meaning we cannot be certain that infinite regress is possible). So how can one be absolutely atheist?

I think it is very unlikely for anybody to be an 'absolutely atheist'. The problem with the 'uncaused first cause' as evidence of God is that it is the logical fallacy known as 'special pleading.'. However, I suspect that except for the most stubborn, the view point of most agnostics/atheists would be that there is insufficient information to accept any God/Gods.

Why does the idea of an uncaused first cause fall under special pleading? I can understand how you could say that if a person claimed that "an anthropomorphic God could exist according to the idea of an uncaused first cause" would be fallacical, but not the idea on it's own.

[bernee51]

Surely the logical outcome of contemplating whether any form of God can exist or not should leave atheists agnostic (using the cosmological argument of an "uncaused first cause" and the fact that we don't know whether the universe will eventually collapse in on itself meaning we cannot be certain that infinite regress is possible). So how can one be absolutely atheist?

I think it is very unlikely for anybody to be an 'absolutely atheist'. The problem with the 'uncaused first cause' as evidence of God is that it is the logical fallacy known as 'special pleading.'. However, I suspect that except for the most stubborn, the view point of most agnostics/atheists would be that there is insufficient information to accept any God/Gods.

Why does the idea of an uncaused first cause fall under special pleading? I can understand how you could say that if a person claimed that "an anthropomorphic God could exist according to the idea of an uncaused first cause" would be fallacical, but not the idea on it's own.

I think the argument goes...

The theist claims that all things need a cause therefore a god exists who caused. However this god does not need a cause.

The uncaused first cause is then a 'special plead' - all things need a cause exept god.

[Mister E]

Oh right. But surely that God wouldn't need a cause since an uncaused... thing before a logical universe existed would be illogical and therefore have no problems with having no cause?

That would allow it to be omnipotent in a sense, too.

[Goat]

Oh right. But surely that God wouldn't need a cause since an uncaused... thing before a logical universe existed would be illogical and therefore have no problems with having no cause?

That would allow it to be omnipotent in a sense, too.

The idea of "God being an uncaused cause" still violates the premise that 'all things have a cause'. If one thing violates that premise, why can't more things violate that premise, and make that premise false?

[bernee51]

Oh right. But surely that God wouldn't need a cause since an uncaused... thing before a logical universe existed would be illogical and therefore have no problems with having no cause?

That would allow it to be omnipotent in a sense, too.

This itself is based on an unsupported assumption that the universe at some time did not exist.

[Mister E]

The idea of "God being an uncaused cause" still violates the premise that 'all things have a cause'. If one thing violates that premise, why can't more things violate that premise, and make that premise false?

Because they are within our universe and our universe is logical. I mean "universe" as within logic/cause, not as within our perception of what exists, though. Why would something outside of logic have to follow any premises whatsoever?

This itself is based on an unsupported assumption that the universe at some time did not exist.

False dilemma - the fact that we don't know whether the universe came into existance or not doesn't mean it can be overruled. Also, doesn't most popular physics support the universe coming into existence (Big Bang/"multiverse" theory)?

Also, I noticed you said " For all concepts of god with which I have so far been presented I can confidently claim to be ‘absolutely atheist’ ". I know this is very pedantic, but a pretty common concept of God is "that which we cannot understand" (straight of Wikipedia). If you do not understand something for the entirety of your lifetime, then you cannot understand it, so it is therefore a concept of God.