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

[Ace Otana]

-----
Ok, this shall be my last attempt at this.
Now no matter how many times I read it, it just doesn't add up. Since last night, I think I now know why.
This fallacy thing seems to be stemming from the utterly pointless questions and answers given. Let me explain.

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

This question is utterly pointless. So it is to be expected that the answer is too. And it is.
The whole point of asking a question is to gain new data/information in order to gain knowledge and to better understand. Now, this question "Why don't you know of a valid reason to believe in God?" is pretty much meaningless. The answer in response to the question is just as pointless - "Because I know of no valid evidence". It's pointless because no new data/information can be gained from this. 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.

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

I shall demonstrate this.

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

There is a pointless answer in this. Can you spot it?
Here I'll high light it in red.

"Why is X annoyed?" "because X is angry" and "Why is X angry?" "Because X is annoyed"
First there is a question, no problems here, then there is a pointless answer in response to the question, here is where it falls. Now the answer given for the question made makes no sense. In fact, it is nothing more than a repeat of the question, and so the answer given is pointless. No new data/information is contained within the answer.
The "why is X angry" question was asking for new data/information, a repeat of the first question would lead to a pointless answer since nothing is gained. I've noticed that this fallacy only pops up once a pointless question or answer has been given.
So when I respond to the question "why don't I believe" with a "because there is no evidence" I have given a proper answer to the question at hand. I know why I don't believe. The question and answer have point. This silly fallacy keeps stemming from an utterly pointless question or answer. If you take away the pointless question, you'll notice it makes sense again.

"Why do I know of no evidence?" is a pointless question. It will lead to a pointless answer and so creates this pointless loop.

"This pen is red because it's red". This is also pointless. You see where I'm going with this right?
So yes I can answer why I don't believe and as you should see, the question that asks of the reason for my lack of belief makes sense. The answer I give in response to the question also makes sense. There is no loop. This loop only seems to occur when a pointless question or answer had been given.

So because can't answer either of those questions without committing a fallacy

You can't give an answer to the question without giving it a completely pointless answer. Thus creates the fallacy.

The problem lies in the questions given. If the question makes no sense, all that stem from it is liable to make just as little sense.

Just to make sure we are clear on this -.

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

You can see where it starts to make no sense. The last answer was completely pointless. It was repeating itself.

There! Now old chap. I'm off up town to go find some girls to flirt with.

[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.

[Ace Otana]

So....agree to disagree then?
Seems to be the only way out of this.

[Edwardo Piet]

Fine. I can't help but still be curious about why you claim to know the answer to my question when that answer either leads to an endless loop or an endless chain of fallacy. But oh well.

[Ace Otana]

Fine. I can't help but still be curious about why you claim to know the answer to my question when that answer either leads to an endless loop or an endless chain of fallacy. But oh well.

I don't claim 100% knowledge over anything. I can only be 99% certain. I never claimed to 'know' anything.

[Edwardo Piet]

You never claimed to know anything? My question is about "How do you know why you're an atheist?".

However much you think you know something, you either know something or you don't, you're either aware or you're not.

If you don't have 100% knowledge of anything..... and the closest you can get is 99% knowledge.... how is that 99% knowledge actually knowledge if you don't know it 100%?

If I only have 50% knowledge of something, then it's only actually knowledge if I 100% know that 50% of it.

Knowledge isn't relative. Knowledge is absolute. Certainty is relative.

[Ace Otana]

You never claimed to know anything? My question is about "How do you know why you're an atheist?".

However much you think you know something, you either know something or you don't, you're either aware or you're not.

I've never encountered such a question. Explain further.

If you don't have 100% knowledge of anything..... and the closest you can get is 99% knowledge.... how is that 99% knowledge actually knowledge if you don't know it 100%?

I didn't say knowledge, I said certainty.

[Edwardo Piet]

I know I'm self-aware because self-knowledge and self-awareness are the same thing (in experience anyway). I can't less than 100% know this. Certainty is relative. Knowledge is absolute.

[Ace Otana]

I know I'm self-aware because self-knowledge and self-awareness are the same thing (in experience anyway). I can't less than 100% know this. Certainty is relative. Knowledge is absolute.

One thing I've learnt about you, when it comes to past discussions is that we would argue over and over and at the end finally realise that we are in fact in full agreement. You know one day, you and me, we will at some point be able to discuss and not fail to understand each other. Let me know when that day comes ok.

You're a funny bloke Evie.

[Edwardo Piet]

Oh cool. So you now agree that we, as atheists, don't know(/ are unaware of) why we're atheists (/are unconvinced/don't believe in God) because we don't know(/ are unaware of) why experience hasn't led us to having any reasons ( valid or invalid, rational or irrational, true or false reasons) or evidence (valid or invalid, rational or irrational, true or false evidence) for God to exist?