Why am I an agnostic atheist? I don't know!

[Edwardo Piet]

Yes you can. As a sapient being, capable of reason and understanding. If asked "do I know why I don't believe" I can answer and tell you. I don't believe in god because I know of no reason or evidence to believe. So yes, you can 'know' why you don't believe.

You're missing my whole point. That begs the question "why don't you know of no reason or evidence to believe?" and the answer is either "I don't know" OR it leads to an infinite regress of paraphrases of "because there is no reason/evidence to believe". Which essentially means "I don't believe because I have no valid reason and I have no valid reason because I have no valid reason" - which is a non-answer because of what the word "because" means. You don't have a reason to believe because you don't have a reason to believe makes no sense.

So whether you answer with "I don't know" or whether you answer with a regress of paraphrases of "because I am unconvinced" or "because I have no valid reason to believe", or "because there is no evidence that I am aware of", in either case how do you know why you don't believe? If you answer with begging the question how is that a valid answer?

IMPORTANT 1:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

E.G:

Person 1: Bob is annoyed right now.
Person 2: How do you know?
Person 1: Well, because he is really angry.

How is that not analogous to:
Person 1: I know why I don't believe in God.
Person 2: How?
Person 1: Well, because I'm unconvinced.

?

IMPORTANT 2:

To help demonstrate why I think the above is begging the question, I shall point out how it also applying the other way around and thus demonstrate that circular reasoning in the logic is the only alternative to the begging the question fallacy:

Person 1: I know why I am unconvinced by the proposition "God exists".
Person 2: How?
Person 1: Well, because I in no way believe that the proposition "God exists" is true!

In which case, if you don't believe because you are unconvinced, and you are unconvinced because you don't believe, how is that not circular reasoning? And if it's not both but merely either one or the other, and so not circular reasoning, how is that not begging the question?

Thus,

A: "Why is X annoyed?" "because X is angry" and "Why is X angry?" "Because X is annoyed"

... is analogously fallacious to:

B: "Why don't I believe in God?" "Because I'm unconvinced." "Why am I unconvinced?" "Because I don't believe".

... Is the alternative to the begging the question fallacy.

My standards require reason, logic and credibility. It is very much down to the person in question. Some see rational in claims even though there is no evidence or credibility in it. Their 'rational' is not rational from my view point. I know why I don't believe. I have my reasons.

Why don't I believe in God? Because I require rational reasons. Why? Because I'm rational. Why? Because I require rational reasons. Why? Because I'm rational. Why? Because I require rational reasons. Why? Because I'm rational. Why? Because I require rational reasons. Why? Because I'm rational. Why? Because I require rational reasons. Why? Because I'm rational. Why? Because I require reasons

So how do you actually know?

But I have answered why I'm not convinced.

As far as I am aware, you haven't done so without committing the begging the question fallacy. See above.

Which should of put an end to all the bloody why questions. Instead of sending it into an endless loop.

As far as I am aware, an endless loop is what it leads to, which is why we don't know.

I am capable of thought, reason and understanding.

I never said you weren't. But how is that relevant to the logic of my argument?

I can tell you in detail why I don't believe.

Maybe. You can try and fail or you can try and succeed. I am not aware of your success yet.

There shouldn't be any why questions after.

Why?

I can't answer the question "Why don't I believe in God?".

I can and have.

Yes, "but is that answer logically valid?" Is what I mean.

You have answered the question. Knowing whether there is evidence or not doesn't matter. You don't know of any evidence for a god or gods. While at the same time, you lack belief in it. You are an agnostic atheist.

I don't know why I am unaware of any evidence for the existence of god(s), so how can I use that itself as a valid answer for knowing why I don't believe?

DvF