Define Atheism

your dopamine was low? what does any of this have to do with your basal ganglia?

Given straital input from dopamine is neccessary for the function of the substantia nigra, which plays an important role in the function of the basal ganglia, a lack of dopamine must effect the typical function of the basal ganglia negatively.

That's why when you have a lot of dopamine, it can help improve your mood.

Now I retain what I said to you earlier. You're just trying to make me look bad. Just you, Symmetric Chaos seems fine. You must take pleasure in making people think they don't know what they are talking about.

On another website there is a literally a cult dedicated to outsmarting people online. Their equivalent to the Sith Code:

"I get asked, If you were a genius what would you do?
I tell them, �Well good friend, this poem will tell you�

If I were a genius, I would not cure cancer
I would post on a forum, to show my wit.

If I were a genius, I would not use my mind for man
I would show math problems, that some can�t solve.

If I were a genius, I would not teach others
I would defend Naruto to the death, the greatest story ever told.

If I were a genius, not a man nor woman could disagree
that I am the best, top 5% of the gene pool of man.

If I were a genius, I would not be humble.
I would act like a jack ass, on a forum to you.

If I were a genius, Oh wait I am.
**** you."

I can tell now, that's why people come on these types of forums to debate. It's fun for them. That is cyberbullying if I'm not mistaken.

so you are a victim again?

No because your attempt failed. I am a target, not a victim this time.

to be honest, you've done little but sideways insult me in two threads now. I personally don't care, because I'm not a child, but it is interesting to see how outright defensive you become with almost no provocation. I'm not sure what attempt I failed in, as I was trolling you and it seemed to provoke the desired effect, but maybe grow a thicker skin or, failing that, add me to your ignore list. it takes two to tango, no?

Well there you go, you admit to being the provoker. You claim that is a sideways insult?? Calling out a provoker is no crime in my book. Why would I be mad? Like I said, I'm not the victim here, just the target. I didn't start anything.

u mad bro?

tone it down a notch or two

I am not upset. In fact it makes me feel good, to call you out as oppossed to falling for your trap.

If I don't respond to you again, it's because I can no longer see your posts. Please understand, this is not because I'm upset - it's because you have already admitted to being a troll.

you mean the trap you are actively and currently participating in?

don't feed the trolls man!

-unblocked-

On second thought, it's good to stay sharp.

To push this back onto the topic of discussion;

@Symmetric Chaos, yeah what you described is more along the lines of agnostic atheism.

Originally posted by Dolos
Second, adressing Symmetric Chaos, then you yourself are not an atheist, you are what's known as an agnostic atheist, which is the EXACT belief I have. You concede to uncertainty but operate outside of religion entirely.

As I said, with people who identify as agnostic this is often a semantic issue. There are no universally accepted terms for religious positions other than that theist means believer. I'll point out that my beliefs are ALSO exactly in line with what is known as "weak atheism." The difference is mainly whether the speaker wishes the emphasize the uncertainty or the ultimate position.

I'd also point out that within my own society I would qualify as a strong atheist, the weak atheist position is more generalized. In my opinion the God described by religions I am most exposed to is demonstrably unreal.

There's been enough though in the area that you can create arbitrarily complex positions if you're searching for one. Ignostic alatrist combines my two favorite terms in order to describe a person who doesn't believe you know what God is well enough to ask if it exists in the first place but wouldn't worship it anyway.

Originally posted by Dolos
Given straital input from dopamine is neccessary for the function of the substantia nigra, which plays an important role in the function of the basal ganglia, a lack of dopamine must effect the typical function of the basal ganglia negatively.

This is a backward argument.

Dopamine levels in the basal ganglia may effect mood but that doesn't mean that fluctuations in mood can be credited to dopamine levels in the basal ganglia. Emotion is all over the place in the brain.

Also this is Oliver's field so it may be a poor place to assert yourself.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos

Also this is Oliver's field so it may be a poor place to assert yourself.

Or a good place depending on whether my motives are for being humbled in order to learn something new or to demonstrate my pre-existing knowledge.

His response, regardless of the motives, put me in a position to where I was uncertain of whether or not I truly knew what I was talking about. So I seized the opportunity to look it up, and thus I had achieved a deeper understanding about something. That's working one brain muscle or another.

P.S.;

My original claim about dopamine was another assertion. However, that time, in order to explain why I might have been being defensive earlier.

a) the substantia nigra receives more inputs from the brainstem/pons rather than the striatum, and is primarily involved in motor regulation. The basal ganglia themselves do have cognitive and affective components, but are not typically associated with stuff like emotional regulation or hormones like testosterone. For instance, damage to the SN is most associated with problems in movement and, iirc, huntingtons disease.

b) dopamine is used by LOTS of neurological circuits, including memory and reward. low dopamine, just sort of in general, might be associated with everything from addictive behaviour to schizophrenia to Parkinson's. there is a general misconception that it is the neurotransmitter that is responsible for "mood" or behaviour (ie: serotonin makes you happy), but this is an extreme overgeneralization. It is the neural circuits that produce the feeling, not the NT.

-edit-

inimalist strikes again!