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

[Edwardo Piet]

Ok, this shall be my last attempt at this.

Then this will be my last response to you.

"Why don't you know of a valid reason to believe in God?"

This question is utterly pointless.

How is that relevant to the fact you can't answer it? If you can't answer the question then how can you also claim to know the answer?

So it is to be expected that the answer is too. And it is.

So do you admit you don't know now then?

The whole point of asking a question is to gain new data/information in order to gain knowledge and to better understand.

"Why do we ask quesitons?" is a different question to "Do we ask questions?", just because a question is pointless doesn't mean we can't ask it. Just because we shouldn't ask it doesn't mean we can't. And, as it happens, there is a point to my question actually, it is precisely because you can't answer it, precisely because all possible answers lead to the Question Begging Fallacy or Circular Reasoning Fallacy, that you, logically, can't know the answer. If your answer leads to fallacy how can you know the answer? That is the point of my question. It is because the answer is unknowable (because it leads to an endless chain or loop of fallacy that you can never answer) that you can't know the answer.

Now, this question "Why don't you know of a valid reason to believe in God?" is pretty much meaningless.

It means: "For what reason do you believe you have no valid reason to believe in God?".

The answer in response to the question is just as pointless - "Because I know of no valid evidence".

That commits the question begging fallacy. That isn't a meaningless or pointless answer. The meaning in it is a fallacious one (because it is just a paraphrasing of "valid reason to believe" if you accept the premises of the argument I gave in my last post here), and the "point" of it was the attempt to answer.

It's pointless because no new data/information can be gained from this.

So why do you still claim to know the answer if you can't answer the question without fallacy?

So both the question and answer are as I see it, completely pointless and so thus leads it into this silly fallacy. They are both just as pointless.

Irrelevant to the fact that you can't answer the question without fallacy and so... why do you claim to know the answer?

Conclusion: You don't know why you don't believe and nor do I.

Once I read this little bit, I knew it didn't add up.

Does my conclusion not follow from my premises? And read the argument in-between if you want the details.

Your incredulity at my conclusion is completely irrelevant to whether my conclusion actually logically follows from the premises from my argument, and it is also irrelevant to whether you accept my premises or not. Do you accept my premises? Do you see the argument in-between that leads to the conclusion?

Thing is, when someone is asking why I don't believe in something and I respond to that question, you'll notice that both the question and answer have a point to it. The answer is with new information. It's once you ask the most pointless question that leads to a most pointless answer that leads nowhere but a pointless circle.

You have completely missed MY point. And, yes, I do have a point (and whether I did or not that's irrelevant to the truth of the matter (as it happens I do have a point)): My point is that this "pointless circle" that you describe is the Circular Reasoning Fallacy, and this pointlessly unanswerable question of mine that you speak of, is unanswerable because all answers, if they don't lead to Circularity, lead to the Question Begging Fallacy....

So you can call it "pointless" all you want, you're still committing a fallacy when you answer, you still never reach a valid conclusion that you know of (because it leads to an endless chain or loop of fallacy): And so why do you claim to "know" the answer?

Something didn't add up and I spotted it. It's the questions and the answers given. They make no sense.

Is that your argument? Because if so, that's a fallacious one. Personal Incredulity is not a valid argument, it's a fallacy.

Everything else you said in your post was based on the whole irrelevant "pointless question" or "pointless answer" objection that I've already dealt with here.