Study Says Videogames "Problematize" Religion as Violent

[cocoadog]

No, history says religion is violent.

 

[Evilpigeon]

By defining your form of atheism as a rejection of fanaticism you seem to be committed to a paradox. If atheism is by definition a rejection of fanaticism then it must, by necessity, be rational. Defining one's self as inherently rational and hence all who oppose you as inherently irrational at the outset is itself a form of fanaticism. Conclusion: Atheism is not by definition a rejection of fanaticism by Reductio ad absurdum.

There is a difference between rejecting all [religious?] beliefs as fanatical and rejecting fanaticism. It is possible to believe in something and for multiple contradictory [opposing] beliefs to be rational.

I agree. What I'm saying is that you can't define atheism as a rejection of fanaticism without falling into fanaticism. It can certainly be something that strives to reject fanaticism, but it cannot be assumed to do so at the outset.

Atheism isn't the belief that everyone else is inherently wrong, it's the belief that none of the available religious solutions are valid, based upon existing evidence. It does not assume that all contradictory views are inherently wrong and thus is not a form of fanatacism.

Again, I agree. Blind Sight seemed to be defining atheism as a rejection of fanaticism. However, defining atheism in the manner you suggest doesn't preclude atheism from being compatible with fanaticism. What's more is the fact that Atheism isn't "the belief that none of the available religious solutions are valid, based upon existing evidence". Atheism, as it is classically defined, is a rejection of the existence of God, not a rejection of every single religious tradition. You seem to be redefining it.

And you realize that if you do redefine it in this broad way you must now deal with the doctrines of all major religions? That's a tall order.

Whoops stupid errors sorry, I'm getting tired.

I think I'm going to give in here because you're correct.

Surely however, the must be a better, more detailed definition. Just as Mormonism isn't officially Christian because of some technicalities of theirs beliefs. Atheism can't possibly be used as a blanket term that includes all religions that don't believe in God. I mean that would mean that states like North Korea are Atheist, despite their official religious cult that deifies their leaders. Or the ancient greeks etc...

Anglicanism is the religion of the Church of England and the religion of our monarch.

I can't take the church of england seriously, even to the extent I can take any religious group seriously. Any mention just brings this to mind.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZVjKlBCvhg

 

[Blind Sight]

Quite true - most if not all of these examples may be easily explained as political/ideological fronts using atheism as a cover or a byproduct.

...So why are people so unwilling to do the same for religion? Why do people believe it's religion itself at the heart of things like the (atrocities committed during the) Crusades, rather than a product of the political entity at the heart of the historical church, using religion as a cover?

I'm not arguing for "evil atheism" here; just bringing up diametric counterpoints to the viewpoint commonly expressed within this thread - that religion is the sum of all evil in the world. My conclusion is simple: Religion is responsible for evil to exactly the same degree that atheism is responsible for the various events I linked to. One must take all or nothing; one cannot vilify the one and ignore (or sanctify) the other.

Well the conclusion that religion is the sum of all evil is an inane notion to begin with, people who make that argument essentially fail history. I think the issue mainly emerges from the concept of faith more then anything else. In regards to the atheism vs. theism debate, theists essentially have the burden of proof. Atheism is the root negative point, in the same way that you assume that no unicorns exist because there has never been substantial proof, atheists view the issue of God(s) the same way. The problem emerges when the notion of 'faith' is used as a justification for belief. Due to the historical experience of violent religious actions I think the issue emerges that faith can be used as a justification for violent extremes, and more moderate individuals are intimidated by that. Another issue comes from the fact that fundamentalist groups of all faiths typically spread a lot of bad press (I mean, look no further then Rick Santorum to see why atheists see Christians as dangerous when he's preaching sexual attitudes that are about nine decades out of date).

Don't get me wrong, I think that a complete focus on religion as the cause for the majority of human conflicts often underplays the effects of other factors, but all the examples you gave are all based on the fanatical devotion to some brand of leftism, which you could argue is a religion in itself. None of your examples are a logical challenge to modern-day rational atheism and its complete rejection of fanaticism. Instead you're arguing against irrational atheism driven by a fanatical, faith-driven belief in something other then religion.

By defining your form of atheism as a rejection of fanaticism you seem to be committed to a paradox. If atheism is by definition a rejection of fanaticism then it must, by necessity, be rational. Defining one's self as inherently rational and hence all who oppose you as inherently irrational at the outset is itself a form of fanaticism. Conclusion: Atheism is not by definition a rejection of fanaticism by Reductio ad absurdum.

While some forms of atheism might be movements to reject what is seen as fanaticism, you can't simply assume or define it as a rejection of fanaticism. While the abstract concept of atheism might only be a negative view, i.e. a rejection of theism, pretty much all instantiated forms of atheism go hand in hand with a positive metaphysical belief system: either materialism or some broader form of physicalism. In fact, most atheists argue their point by appealing to these metaphysical worldviews. However, neither believing in physicalism or just rejecting the notion of God keeps you from being a fanatic about something else, e.g. nationalism or Marxism.

The point is that you can't conveniently define atheism to exclude anyone who exhibits fanaticism about something other than religion. Hardcore Marxists have a completely legitimate claim to atheism. Atheism is completely compatible with fanaticism.

Did I say that atheism as a concept is incompatible with fanaticism? No. I said that rational atheism (not my term by the way, it's used as a historical descriptor for Enlightenment era atheist theorists and post-modern atheists that come to the conclusion based on empirical analysis) was not compatible with it, while irrational atheism (another historical descriptor used for atheism such as anarchists in the late 19th century) is completely so. A rational atheist is an atheist in the negative sense, they've come to the conclusion and that's largely it (they may write about it however, but that's pretty much the extent to how their belief affects public discourse) while an irrational atheist is one in a positive sense, i.e. they're trying to actively change the system to undermine religion/spiritualism. In the same way that there are fundamentalist religious groups and moderate religious groups, there are rational and irrational atheists (one builds their consensus on empiricism, the other embraces atheism due to another pre-existing doctrine). The difference is not in their lack of faith, but how they exercise that element of their philosophy. I was NOT, I repeat, NOT saying that atheism is by definition the rejection of fanaticism, so please stop putting words in my mouth.

 

[ReiverCorrupter]

By defining your form of atheism as a rejection of fanaticism you seem to be committed to a paradox. If atheism is by definition a rejection of fanaticism then it must, by necessity, be rational. Defining one's self as inherently rational and hence all who oppose you as inherently irrational at the outset is itself a form of fanaticism. Conclusion: Atheism is not by definition a rejection of fanaticism by Reductio ad absurdum.

There is a difference between rejecting all [religious?] beliefs as fanatical and rejecting fanaticism. It is possible to believe in something and for multiple contradictory [opposing] beliefs to be rational.

I agree. What I'm saying is that you can't define atheism as a rejection of fanaticism without falling into fanaticism. It can certainly be something that strives to reject fanaticism, but it cannot be assumed to do so at the outset.

Atheism isn't the belief that everyone else is inherently wrong, it's the belief that none of the available religious solutions are valid, based upon existing evidence. It does not assume that all contradictory views are inherently wrong and thus is not a form of fanatacism.

Again, I agree. Blind Sight seemed to be defining atheism as a rejection of fanaticism. However, defining atheism in the manner you suggest doesn't preclude atheism from being compatible with fanaticism. What's more is the fact that Atheism isn't "the belief that none of the available religious solutions are valid, based upon existing evidence". Atheism, as it is classically defined, is a rejection of the existence of God, not a rejection of every single religious tradition. You seem to be redefining it.

And you realize that if you do redefine it in this broad way you must now deal with the doctrines of all major religions? That's a tall order.

Whoops stupid errors sorry, I'm getting tired.

I think I'm going to give in here because you're correct.

Surely however, the must be a better, more detailed definition. Just as Mormonism isn't officially Christian because of some technicalities of theirs beliefs. Atheism can't possibly be used as a blanket term that includes all religions that don't believe in God. I mean that would mean that states like North Korea are Atheist, despite their official religious cult that deifies their leaders.

Well, that's the classic definition. Yeah, some religions might be considered atheistic in the classical sense if they lack the notion of a deity. But definitions change over time. Given the historical significance of the term I would come up with a new term to avoid confusion. It's probably better called 'anti-religionism' or 'anti-supernaturalism' but both of those terms have their own issues.

 

[Jormankpi]

Ah yes, "religion", how could we have dismissed that claim.

Anyway, either he was really bored and couldn't find a more or less interesting topic to base his work on, or this topic looks "solid" in the eyes of the university teachers, who are into discussions on religion, and don't know jack about videogames, thus ensuring that their ignorance of half of this research is gonna lead this research to appraisal, for it shows religion as a subject of attack (missused) by videogames. Oh well.

Oh and next subject will be "Hellsing anime depicts church as pure brute force, violates religion as a whole", by another unknown author.

 

[Treblaine]

Wallbanger

Creationism. Theistic Evolution. Two different viewpoints, neither representing religion as a whole. This is why you RESEARCH the things you are criticizing instead of ignorantly going "I don't like it, therefore I don't need to understand it."

AND WHAT DOES YOUR BLATHERING HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH VIDEOGAMES?!?

Theistic evolution still contradicts the bible... completely.

And how would you know? You don't read the bible. And no, it doesn't.

Don't act like you're an authority on the matter, because you clearly aren't doing your homework.

Day-age interpretation? Oh this is ridiculous. I know enough about the bible to know it is very specific on many matters that are just scientifically impossible! Now they have to be interpreted inflating a day to be either a million years or a billion years? Why would god be so cryptic? Isn't it far more likely genesis like the rest of the bible was just completely made up back when they had no idea that science of the future would totally catch them out?

I haven't read all the work on homoeopathy to know that THAT is bullshit.

 

[Waaghpowa]

Well since everyone else is doing it...

Honestly, I think both sides, Atheists and theists, are in the wrong.

I personally think that the belief and the rejecting the existence of a superior being are both irrational. Atheists will claim that there is proof that there is no God or lack of proof that there is a God while theists will simply acknowledge the existence of one on pure faith (which is kind of the point, but bear with me). In my opinion, the most rational approach is a kind of agnosticism.

I am agnostic, simply because both the theists and atheists have yet to provide sufficient evidence to sway my position on the existence of a God(s). As such I will remain agnostic until one side can provide such evidence to conclude the existence, or non existence of a God(s).

Also I'm on the side of Spinoza in the interpretation that God is not an anthropomorphic super natural being, but simply nature. All things in the universe exist because of the laws that govern them. So I'm also a pantheist.

Though I acknowledge that people of a faith aren't all violent, there are always the minority which ruin it for everyone else, as it is with any group. We can't ignore the numerous instances of war, violence and discrimination associated with faith. The people who are responsible for such atrocities don't necessarily represent the majority. But again, we can't ignore that religion DOES have a history of violence. I wont get into that whole thing with the Vatican protecting priests who have sexually abused children, don't want to get off topic.

As far as video games portraying religion, sure it may seem harsh, but it's also lazy. It's easy to say that a villain is doing something bad because he's doing in the name of his god. Given the view on religious terrorism in the last decade, not too hard to people to get that.

 

[mephet]

Two points, not in direct reply to anyone, but because I want to get it out of my system.

- The concept of evolution does not contradict the book of Genesis. The book of Genesis, like much of the Old Testament, is not necessarily meant to be taken completely literally. There's no way people thousands of years ago could've known about evolution, yet they, like most people all around the earth, needed a way to explain the world's existance. The thing to really take away from Genesis (if you are a Christian, anyway), is that God created the world: the sun, stars and moon as lights (not as other gods), earth, water, all animals and humans. It also says that God gave humans special responsibilities, and that all sins are the result of human weakness and not the doing of God himself.
The idea that God could not have worked on creation through evolution seems pretty funny to me. If there is an all-knowing, all-powerful being that stands above time itself and has created everything, including the laws proved by science, why would he be limited by any of it?

- "Why does God let us do horrible things?" Free will. Without it there's no good and evil, as there's no choice. Without those things being human is rather pointless, reducing us to fancy toys for God. I don't think anybody wants that.

 

[Bara_no_Hime]

I'm not fan of religion, I recognize it as probably the greatest catalyst for violence in human history.

Bzzt, wrong. Sorry. You've got an error there. Religion isn't the greatest catalyst for violence in human history.

HUMANS are the greatest catalyst for violence in human history.

In evolutionary terms, violence = survival. We're the top of the food chain because we learned how to kill anything and everything on the planet, including ourselves. Religion is just an excuse - just like race, territory, resources, laws, and patterns on flags. Oh, and cause it's fun.

Which is why we have violent video games - because killing is fun. Evolution made it so.

Who is the violent religious sect in Mass Effect 2???

The closest I can think of is Samara. "Find peace in the embrace of the Goddess *bust head open like a melon*"

That's about all I can think of. Oh, and "Dead Gods still dream" (something like that).

Yeah, I was wondering that myself. I got the impression that the article author was talking about religious groups being enemies, and I can't think of any... except maybe the Geth Heretics? Sort of?

 

[Beautiful End]

I find it funny that they mention the worst examples possible. Final Fantasy XIII? Seriously? Because I don't think Cocoon and the Fal'Cie fall into that category. If anything, I'd go for Final Fantasy X, where Spira is being rules by ancient pseudo-religious rules that Yuna and their party pretty much obliterate. I don't see it as a comparison to real life because...you know, it's a video game. But come, FFXIII? HOW?

And Mass Effect 2? I'm not even gonna bother with that one.

What about God of War? Or Dante's Inferno? Or Devil May Cry? Or Shin Megami Tensei? It can't get any more fucked up than that.

See, what bothers me about these 'studies', aside from the fact that they choose to bring out bad things about videogames, even if they're a lie, is that their studies are very poorly researched. They play two games and BOOM! Research accomplished! It's kinda what I do at school; if I have a book report due, I skim through the book and write a report before class. Except, you know, I'm a university senior and these...researchers are supposed to be above that level.

I think the bottom line is this: They're forgetting they're videogames. Whoever is dumb enough to believe videogames can substitute reality needs to be slapped across the face with a cactus. Religion being portrayed as the fun part of a videogame is not an appealing concept, not because all gamers are atheists or whatever, but because it just isn't! If a kid has to choose between playing videogames or going to church, they'll choose videogames. And that doesn't mean they're Satan's spawn. It's just common sense.Attempting to combine both good, "fun" religion with a videogame has very catastrophic and...boring consequences.

Spoiler: Case in point.

 

[Blind Sight]

I am agnostic, simply because both the theists and atheists have yet to provide sufficient evidence to sway my position on the existence of a God(s). As such I will remain agnostic until one side can provide such evidence to conclude the existence, or non existence of a God(s).

Frankly, as I've said before, atheists don't have to prove anything. They're the negative aspect of the burden of proof analysis. One does not have to prove that dragons do not exist, that's the base position to hold until such evidence emerges that confirms their existence. Asking atheists to 'prove' that there is no higher being is like asking someone to prove there is no such thing as ghosts or the Loch Ness monster. You will never get a satisfactory answer because it is not the base position's responsibility to gather proof, it is the positive claim that requires evidence. This is simple empirical deduction based on a true/false position, not two binary positive outcomes that have to justify both sides.

 

[ReiverCorrupter]

Don't get me wrong, I think that a complete focus on religion as the cause for the majority of human conflicts often underplays the effects of other factors, but all the examples you gave are all based on the fanatical devotion to some brand of leftism, which you could argue is a religion in itself. None of your examples are a logical challenge to modern-day rational atheism and its complete rejection of fanaticism. Instead you're arguing against irrational atheism driven by a fanatical, faith-driven belief in something other then religion.

By defining your form of atheism as a rejection of fanaticism you seem to be committed to a paradox. If atheism is by definition a rejection of fanaticism then it must, by necessity, be rational. Defining one's self as inherently rational and hence all who oppose you as inherently irrational at the outset is itself a form of fanaticism. Conclusion: Atheism is not by definition a rejection of fanaticism by Reductio ad absurdum.

While some forms of atheism might be movements to reject what is seen as fanaticism, you can't simply assume or define it as a rejection of fanaticism. While the abstract concept of atheism might only be a negative view, i.e. a rejection of theism, pretty much all instantiated forms of atheism go hand in hand with a positive metaphysical belief system: either materialism or some broader form of physicalism. In fact, most atheists argue their point by appealing to these metaphysical worldviews. However, neither believing in physicalism or just rejecting the notion of God keeps you from being a fanatic about something else, e.g. nationalism or Marxism.

The point is that you can't conveniently define atheism to exclude anyone who exhibits fanaticism about something other than religion. Hardcore Marxists have a completely legitimate claim to atheism. Atheism is completely compatible with fanaticism.

Did I say that atheism as a concept is incompatible with fanaticism? No. I said that rational atheism (not my term by the way, it's used as a historical descriptor for Enlightenment era atheist theorists and post-modern atheists that come to the conclusion based on empirical analysis) was not compatible with it, while irrational atheism (another historical descriptor used for atheism such as anarchists in the late 19th century) is completely so. In the same way that there are fundamentalist religious groups and moderate religious groups, there are rational and irrational atheists (one builds their consensus on empiricism, the other embraces atheism due to another pre-existing doctrine). Irrational and rational atheists are openly part of the non-theistic culture now, it's typically fairly easy to tell them apart.

Well, you're still defining things as rational and irrational, so you haven't evaded my point entirely. The question remains as to whether the "rational atheists" necessarily live up to their namesake. You can have the abstract notion of rational atheism, but by calling yourself a rational atheist you seem to be making the same sort of pretentious presumption to which I was originally objecting.

Another worry occurs: someone could arrive at the doctrine of atheism rationally, i.e. through well supported empirical arguments, and still be completely irrational when it comes to politics. So yes, if 'rational atheism' is defined by using rational methods to arrive at atheism, then it is, by definition, incompatible with fanaticism regarding atheism. (Putting aside the question as to whether anyone actually lives up to the ideal of rational atheism.) But this doesn't preclude it from being compatible with fanaticism in other regards.

You seemed to be asserting that anyone who is a fanatic in regard to non-religious subject matter cannot be a rational atheist.

 

[mjcabooseblu]

As far as I'm concerned, every other form of fiction, and non-fiction (hey there, crusades!) has done this far before gaming. I find it interesting, also, that he draws attention to the Knight Templar and Crusader aspects, as it seems he's pointing out that they're a sort of allegory for real people that did real, violent things with real, violent consequences.

Also, I call bullshit. There is no way in hell an actual student used the 'word' "problematize" in his study. Edit: And yet he did.

Hopefully this doesn't come off as unnecessarily snide, too, as I actually am just making observations. Honestly, it just seems like slightly less than a big deal to me.

 

[Kimarous]

Wallbanger

Creationism. Theistic Evolution. Two different viewpoints, neither representing religion as a whole. This is why you RESEARCH the things you are criticizing instead of ignorantly going "I don't like it, therefore I don't need to understand it."

AND WHAT DOES YOUR BLATHERING HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH VIDEOGAMES?!?

Theistic evolution still contradicts the bible... completely.

And how would you know? You don't read the bible. And no, it doesn't.

Don't act like you're an authority on the matter, because you clearly aren't doing your homework.

Day-age interpretation? Oh this is ridiculous. I know enough about the bible to know it is very specific on many matters that are just scientifically impossible! Now they have to be interpreted inflating a day to be either a million years or a billion years? Why would god be so cryptic? Isn't it far more likely genesis like the rest of the bible was just completely made up back when they had no idea that science of the future would totally catch them out?

I haven't read all the work on homoeopathy to know that THAT is bullshit.

Here's an explanation of how that reasoning works.

Not that I expect someone who denounces everything religious as "bullshit" to bother understanding it.

 

[Treblaine]

Well yeah, I DO think it's ridiculous to believe in invisible and totally undetectable consciousness that apparently personally made every last tiny bit of the universe... until science proved it didn't.

Ermm... You do realize that all subjective consciousness in undetectable, right? Prove to me that you're conscious and not merely a complex bundle of matter and energy that behaves in certain ways.

There are plenty of problems with the idea of God and creationism, but scientific inquiry hasn't disproved these ideas outright. It has effectively disproved the doctrine that the world was created in seven days etc. But someone could still say that God created the big bang, etc. They can't be disproved in the strongest sense, but their story is so arbitrary and needlessly anthropocentric that there's no reason to accept it.

It's pretty clear that consciousness exists in the brain. Studies of people with brain injuries and how people recollect consciousness with varying measured brain activity have confirmed this. It is a well established science of studying if someone is brain dead or if they have "locked in syndrome", mainly advising on whether life support should be removed. That is consciousness right there, that brain activity.

"But someone could still say that God created the big bang"

Ok, but why god? Why not some other aspect. The creation of the universe is something extremely massive and compressed, but also extremely simple. The lowest entropy state. A homogeneous mix of electrons, protons, neutrons and other subatomic molecules. No complex molecules. No layers, it's not really something that a consciousness would create as it is so simple.

Spoiler

I don't understand why a being of conscious thought would do this, then apparently do NOTHING for 13.75 BILLION years then out of all the hundreds of billions of galaxies and out of the hundreds of billions of stars in each galaxy, this being homes in on this rock orbiting our sun and spies on every tiny aspect of these weird hairless apes, reading their minds... and wanting them to love him.

Only never saying so openly to all of them, only subtly sending subliminal messages to a few of them to ghost write a series of books taking credit for every minute construction of every part of the world and the universe... then do nothing to stop scientist proving that all those were false claims. Also his son apparently came to earth, but awkwardly his father never actually backed him up by like booming through the skies "Jesus of Nazaruth is my Son, the Son of God" in each local language. No, Jesus was left rather insistently saying he was and performing magic tricks like healing the blind

All the while this being was allegedly grabbing the consciousness of every one of these apes at the moment they die and either send them for an eternity of pleasure or an eternity of torment. It's unclear when he started doing this, how many hundreds of thousands of years before Judeism or Christianity. I suppose there are some Neanderthals in Hell somewhere.

I'm sorry, but of all the theories in the running for the cause of the big bang... this is not one of the big contenders. It just doesn't make any sense.

Just because science hasn't answered a question doesn't mean ANYTHING is possible or plausible.

 

[spartan231490]

I'm saying this as someone who is religious. Organised religion "problematizes" religion much more than video games ever could.
However, religion isn't the catalyst for violence that people think it is. It's just the justification, the real catalyst is human nature, our human need for conflict and the way we define ourselves and the way we define the world around us through conflict. I don't really believe that I skip class because I worked 4 shifts in a row, I know I'm actually doing it because I'm lazy, but when I'm lying in bed I justify it through work. It's the same with religion.

Look at the crusades. The Pope didn't put his support behind it because he thought there was sound religious reasons, he did it for money and land, the same reasons every other war has ever been fought. They would have happened with or without religion, religion was just an easy way to assuage the peoples concern. Just like Bush used WMDs to assuage people's concern over Iraq. It happens, we are selfish creatures that thrive on conflict. Eliminating the justifications will never change that, and so it will never stop the violence.

 

[Blind Sight]

Well, you're still defining things as rational and irrational, so you haven't evaded my point entirely. The question remains as to whether the "rational atheists" necessarily live up to their namesake. You can have the abstract notion of rational atheism, but by calling yourself a rational atheist you seem to be making the same sort of pretentious presumption to which I was originally objecting.

Another worry occurs: someone could arrive at the doctrine of atheism rationally, i.e. through well supported empirical arguments, and still be completely irrational when it comes to politics. So yes, if 'rational atheism' is defined by using rational methods to arrive at atheism, then it is, by definition, incompatible with fanaticism regarding atheism. (Putting aside the question as to whether anyone actually lives up to the ideal of rational atheism.) But this doesn't preclude it from being compatible with fanaticism in other regards.

You seemed to be asserting that anyone who is a fanatic in regard to non-religious subject matter cannot be a rational atheist.

Like I said, I didn't invent the terms or their definition. If you want to ask someone why they went for the rational/irrational definition, ask Daniel Guerin (well unfortunately he's dead, but he popularized the dichotomy) or Daniel Dennett. Modernist atheism has also been deemed 'new atheism' which serves to complicate things even more considering the movement is made up of both groups. I'm using these terms because they're deemed the norm in secularist history, I'm not arguing that either is rational or irrational, just that those are what the terms are called. You wouldn't ask me to explain how a realist is a realist or if a constructivist is constructive if we were talking about international relations.

 

[Innegativeion]

He forgot SMT2 where you try to kill God. He'd have a field day with it.

Or pokemon where you can capture God to do your bidding(mostly killing innocent wildlife) by proving your schnauzer can beat him in a fist fight.



I love how convenient it is that these videogame naysayers so conveniently ignore centuries and centuries of literature doing the exact same things. It's like they live in their own little bubble where the world is still stuck in an era before written language.

 

[Waaghpowa]

I am agnostic, simply because both the theists and atheists have yet to provide sufficient evidence to sway my position on the existence of a God(s). As such I will remain agnostic until one side can provide such evidence to conclude the existence, or non existence of a God(s).

Frankly, as I've said before, atheists don't have to prove anything. They're the negative aspect of the burden of proof analysis. One does not have to prove that dragons do not exist, that's the base position to hold until such evidence emerges that confirms their existence. Asking atheists to 'prove' that there is no higher being is like asking someone to prove there is no such thing as ghosts or the Loch Ness monster. You will never get a satisfactory answer because it is not the base position's responsibility to gather proof, it is the positive claim that requires evidence. This is simple empirical deduction based on a true/false position, not two binary positive outcomes that have to justify both sides.

I should give an example of what I think of in my head.

Theist: God exists because because all things come from him (or something, I can't think of a good argument from their side)

Me: Our existence or the existence of other things isn't necessarily proof of Gods existence.

Atheist: God doesn't exist because we understand how things work on an atomic level!

Me: Understanding how something works isn't necessarily proof that there was no creator. For all we know, if there is a god, he designed it as such.

To be fair though, you are correct in saying that Theists are the ones that must provide evidence to prove their side. Generally speaking, they tend to have the weakest points that don't involve quoting some interpretation of scripture from a thousand years ago and even then that doesn't hold up much. Atheists don't necessarily have to prove anything, but it's still not entirely convincing to me.