Guilt and sinning...

[Bratty]

I don't see a difference. Feeling guilty about a thought is a natural reaction to a personal moral code, regardless of what it may be. Thereby not pointless.

If you only feel guilty about actions taken, then you run the risk of making a mistake without knowing the consequences because you did not have the guilt ingrained in the thought process.

I am not suggesting one should hold a crime in the mind and a crime in action as on the same playing field. But what I am saying is that the guilt one feels from a crime in the mind is preventitive from the crime being played into action.

And Ace, I did back down religion vs concept per my last post.

[Bratty]

In further analogy. Jealousy. It is a natural reaction. One feels jealous because of (insert thing here). To say "Jealousy is pointless and one should not feel jealousy" is a cop out. It is there for a reason. Same with guilt.

Feeling jealousy or guilt is natural, not a bad thing, and actually can have positive results. Even certain actions taken can have positive results.

I feel guilty so I make ammends...

I feel jealous so I find out what is making me feel insecure and try and fix the problem..

Both feelings in thoughts came out into positive actions.

To say either guilt, or jealousy, is pointless, is to deny a part of the human condition.

Now in retrospect, I am _not_ condoning that someone feel so guilty they stop eating and pine for hours about something they cannot fix.

Nor am I saying that someone should beat someone up because they feel jealous.

The actions taken are a judge of your character, imo. The feelings in the thoughts are reaction to the circumstances at hand to better equip you with what actions may be most beneficial.

[Robert Walper]

Well, guilt about thoughts has never influenced my behavior because I don't feel guilt about my thoughts. Ever. No matter what nature they are. Guilt never dictates my behavior. Common sense and morality does.

Edit: To expand on the concept, I'll cite an example. There's been times when I've been enormously angry at someone, say a brother or friend. I've thought about punching them or taking out my frusteration by physical means. I don't feel guilty in the slightest thinking these thoughts, because of the simple fact I know I will not do it. If I'd actually hit or hurt someone though, that's an entirely different cake altogether.

[Robert Walper]

In further analogy. Jealousy. It is a natural reaction. One feels jealous because of (insert thing here). To say "Jealousy is pointless and one should not feel jealousy" is a cop out. It is there for a reason. Same with guilt.

Feeling jealousy or guilt is natural, not a bad thing, and actually can have positive results. Even certain actions taken can have positive results.

I feel guilty so I make ammends...

I feel jealous so I find out what is making me feel insecure and try and fix the problem..

Both feelings in thoughts came out into positive actions.

To say either guilt, or jealousy, is pointless, is to deny a part of the human condition.

You're not getting it. Just because guilt about thoughts is pointless doesn't mean we're denying the concept exists.

[Bratty]

I don't believe that guilt in thoughts is pointless, and have laid out the reasons why.

[Robert Walper]

I don't believe that guilt in thoughts is pointless, and have laid out the reasons why.

Once again, you're misunderstanding the arguement.

Feeling guilty in thought (as in just feeling guilty) is perfectly fine and normal.

Feeling guilty about thoughts is entirely different. Guilt about something that exists nowhere outside of your own mind is pointless.

Do you honestly not understand the difference? It's the source of guilt we're discussing here.

[Bratty]

Walpner, I am letting it go because you can't seem to comprehend that I _do_ understand what you are saying, but choose not to argue any further.

I have stated my points in regards to both guilt in thoughts and guilt about thoughts, seperately and together, and feel there is little more than can be said. Frankly, I am getting fatigued at repeating myself.

You win.

Have some cake.

[Robert Walper]

Walpner, I am letting it go because you can't seem to comprehend that I _do_ understand what you are saying, but choose not to argue any further.

I have stated my points in regards to both guilt in thoughts and guilt about thoughts, seperately and together, and feel there is little more than can be said. Frankly, I am getting fatigued at repeating myself.

You win.

Have some cake.

It's not about winning, Bratty. It just bothers me that people, presumeably such as yourself, feel guilty just thinking about things. To me, that suggests a poorer life, one racked with unncessary guilt.

[Bratty]

I find guilt in thoughts incredibly beneficial, both about thoughts and in them. Don't worry about me. I have laid my demons to rest, and continue to do so as they arrise. In examining them, contemplating and self reflecting the guilt felt, I learn more about the world around and myself.

Don't play this out as more than it is. You have your viewpoints, and felt that they are right and needed to be expressed. You got frustrated and felt that I wasn't understanding you, because I didn't agree with you. Don't displace your annoyance with people who whine and moan on their guilt for someone who can analyze it without it eating alive. I neither whine nor moan and am incredibly comfortable with myself and the truths I have found. They work for me in this life.

Be that as it may, it was not about me ~smirks~

I am not the only one who thinks this way. Whether personally, nor scientifically/academically. Frued had concepts on this as well as many who picked up from his initial work. The superego keeping the id in check and all that jazz.

[Robert Walper]

Well, our differences is what makes the world interesting.

But ultimately, if you feel your life is better with your inclination to feel guilty about thoughts, who am I to argue?

[Bratty]

~LOL~ this coming from the same person who argued.

But again, it was not ever about me.

I completely understand and respect your viewpoint. I could have debated from that viewpoint as well.

However, this is one debate I felt was better expressed from the other side. No one should feel "guilty" about ...feeling...guilty...~L~ about their thoughts.

[Robert Walper]

~LOL~ this coming from the same person who argued.

Quiet you.

But again, it was not ever about me.

Ok, I should've said "person" than, rather than you. My bad.

[Caz]

Regarding what you said with belief, Erica, I actually fall on Walper's side of the fence there. I don't have any sort of "belief," mostly due to the fact that the life I've led doesn't really lend any support to a belief system other than basic Darwinian survival.

Which is pretty much how I've lived these last seventeen years--just to survive.

[Bratty]

Regarding what you said with belief, Erica, I actually fall on Walper's side of the fence there. I don't have any sort of "belief," mostly due to the fact that the life I've led doesn't really lend any support to a belief system other than basic Darwinian survival.

Which is pretty much how I've lived these last seventeen years--just to survive.

I understand survival. I had a pretty crappy childhood/teen years myself. Abuse, living on the streets, rape, molestation, cradle robbers, a mom which probably rivils your own, gang violence, poverty, divorce. I know what it is like to hurt. It is really easy to be reactionary only in such situations - kill or be killed.

One does not have time to think about guilt. It is the basic hierarchy of needs.

But when, not if, you get past the point of surviving just for the sake of surviving, and fulfilling your safety and basic requirements all need from a purely survival perspective, you will need more, feel more.

When one feels more, they either allow themselves to feel and react in their own specific way, or they put up walls and shut down. Those who put up walls have a tendency to be shallow, empty, robotic, etc. Though they may seem mysterious, the majority are not. There is no depth past the walls because the emotional maturing stopped at the point of shut down.

There is an ebb and flow to life for some people. For some it is not an algorithmic equation all equaling a specific amount every time.

Guilt does not have to "not compute" because it is a negative which doesn't fall into a tidy package. In a abstract concept, if one has personal control, they can evalutate the guilt, disect it, and discover not only why it happens, but what is the long term result of the guilt, and judge accordingly how one can act.

In an academic sense, guilt is the superego, created to keep the id in check. Id is ...want want want have. It is kind of that way when you are in survival mode. Even if you don't get what you want, it is all about reaction. Superego is the moral constraints, the jimminy cricket, the guilt. it works in conjunction with the ego and id, not against.

[imperfect vision]

There's more to life than just instinctual reactions; if there wasn't, then life wouldn't be as complicated.

**

I want x (some berries), but I am encountering a problem y(a bear). Given that I am particularly squishy, my options are a (avoid/ run off the bear) or b (find something else to fill my stomach).

**

No store to purchase berries from with hard earned coinage from my employer who runs a multi-billion dollar industry making filaments for cheap sub-asian lightbulbs. There wouldn't be an interest. Or there would be, only in a different manner.

anyway.

Yes, there can be guilt about thoughts - guilt can be a motivator and cryptkeeper. Lady MacBeth, for example.

Guilt about a thought can be a moral indicator. If you can have a thought about slaughtering three adults, two children and a baby in a convenience store, and truthfully say there is without a doubt no remorse over the idea of the action, does that mean you are a danger to society? That's the sort of thing they make inquiries about on parole boards.

Guilt sets the boundaries of the playing field. Hope sets the playing field itself. My dad just turned 49 two weeks back. He is guilty about quitting school, about not being able to provide a better life for my mom and us. He is without hope in his form of employ, carpentry. However, he has had hope recently about a project he is finally able to invest some capital and time into, and wants to market.

Lack of belief in something better works when it is only you - it's your actions on your own that keep friends or drive them away, it's your thought process that creates social and mental interactions, it's your work ethic that declares whether you keep a method of income.

Belief in something - a house with fuzzy carpeting, a wife's delicate touch, hot tender turkey - helps get you by when you're 25 with three kids, rent and a car payment to keep in mind.

Robert

-

Now is the time
get on the right (left) side
and you'll be godlike.

KMFDM, "Godlike"

[Caz]

In regards to that, Robert: do you think one needs a 'belief' to feel guilt? That someone can't just feel guilt because they saw how their actions affected someone badly?

I've found a lot of religious people (in my area, at least, though Utah is an abnormality) here seem to think that if you don't have religion or at least an organised belief structure, you therefore have to be a remorseless sociopath.

[Robert Walper]

In regards to that, Robert: do you think one needs a 'belief' to feel guilt? That someone can't just feel guilt because they saw how their actions affected someone badly?

As I've stated, I have zero beliefs myself, but I'm more than capable of feeling guilty about actions on part of myself.

Personally, I say a person who feels guilty because they understand the consequences of their actions rather than "Mr 'god' is watching me' is far more moral than the religious individual. To me, that means a person has a intuitive understanding of right and wrong (or was just brought up right) rather than only feeling guilty because they belief they're going to be punished in "afterlife" or similiar concept.

To illustrate by example:

Person A behaves because of beliefs.
Person B behaves because of understanding consqeunces.

I think person B is far more moral, and furthermore Person A is dangerous. If their beliefs are compromised, they will see no reason to behave. (this isn't exaggerating either, I've heard and know people like this)

I've found a lot of religious people (in my area, at least, though Utah is an abnormality) here seem to think that if you don't have religion or at least an organised belief structure, you therefore have to be a remorseless sociopath.

By definition, religious individuals/beliefs are irrational. That's why I pay very little attention to them.

[imperfect vision]

In regards to that, Robert: do you think one needs a 'belief' to feel guilt? That someone can't just feel guilt because they saw how their actions affected someone badly?

Nope, you can feel bad for any number of reasons - it's personal values that define your borders. Religion imposes a (sometimes) rigidly defined set of values over your own.

That's where you get fanatics and agnostics from; the fanatics own personal values are way within that sort of box, the agnostics go beyond the borders of any imposed value systems.

I've found a lot of religious people (in my area, at least, though Utah is an abnormality) here seem to think that if you don't have religion or at least an organised belief structure, you therefore have to be a remorseless sociopath.

It's the fanatics and the lifers that will say that lack of religion = sociopathy.

[SirNitram]

I've found a lot of religious people (in my area, at least, though Utah is an abnormality) here seem to think that if you don't have religion or at least an organised belief structure, you therefore have to be a remorseless sociopath.

By definition, religious individuals/beliefs are irrational. That's why I pay very little attention to them.

It is illogical and fallacious to declare because they are irrational in one aspect they are completely irrational. After all, human emotions tend towards irrationality. It is as fallacious, in fact, as dismissing the atheistic and adeistic as remoreless.

(Adeistic is made up: It refers to having no divinity as opposed to no religion. I got no religion but I got my deity. He just happens to be Reality. The words are functionally interchangable, ergo all of this is extraneous.)

[Cynical Cat]

By definition, religious individuals/beliefs are irrational.

A fairly meaningless sentence. Religious beliefs are irrational, but all humans are irrational, to one degree or another. Borg fanwank is also irrational.

[imperfect vision]

Personally, I say a person who feels guilty because they understand the consequences of their actions rather than "Mr 'god' is watching me' is far more moral than the religious individual. To me, that means a person has a intuitive understanding of right and wrong (or was just brought up right) rather than only feeling guilty because they belief they're going to be punished in "afterlife" or similiar concept.

"Right" and "Wrong" are defined by a personal value structure. Everything exists within a context. To simply say that a person acts only because their religion tells them to is describing a fanatic. Sure, there are plenty of those. They're the ones that get on 60 Minutes.

For an average person, it's not about God, or Allah, or Heaven. It's about having a value structure that is something greater than themselves. Protestant Christian religions talk about New Testament Jesus and the new Covenant, and turning the other cheek and living virtuously and what not. A lot don't live up to that because unconditional love is so fucking hard to do. Well, I love my wife unconditionally, and I love my stepkids unconditionally. No matter what I will always give to them before I give to myself. That is my personal value structure. The society of MORE BIGGER MINE tarnishes the belief structure of unconditional love. The alcohol abuse by ones parents causes openness to wither. Nothing exists in a vacuum.

To illustrate by example:

Person A behaves because of beliefs.
Person B behaves because of understanding consequences.

I think person B is far more moral, and furthermore Person A is dangerous. If their beliefs are compromised, they will see no reason to behave. (this isn't exaggerating either, I've heard and know people like this)

Well, to qualify two thirds of the world based on six-to-sixty people you may know and have heard of isn't doing the world much justice. Besides, I can't guarantee but I believe that most of the people in question are Americans, and we fuck up just about everything we can.

By definition, religious individuals/beliefs are irrational. That's why I pay very little attention to them.

Religious beliefs are tarnished, complicated, and perpetuated by governments, icons, idols, and society. That's where the irrationality comes from.

However, I do not believe in organized religion. I think church is bullshit. However, I will not deny the fellowship and other benefits it brings to some. I am, however, mildly spiritual, which gives me something to look forward to and hopefully put harmony into mine and my family's lives.

Robert

--
Now is the time
get on the right (left) side
and you'll be godlike.

KMFDM, "Godlike"

[Cynical Cat]

Religious beliefs are tarnished, complicated, and perpetuated by governments, icons, idols, and society. That's where the irrationality comes from.

Incorrect. Religious beliefs are irrational because they are not supported by evidence, but instead by personal belief. Whether or not they are tarnished is a completely different issue. Irrational is different than worthless. Love is, after all, an emotion and thus irrational.

[Robert Walper]

I've found a lot of religious people (in my area, at least, though Utah is an abnormality) here seem to think that if you don't have religion or at least an organised belief structure, you therefore have to be a remorseless sociopath.

By definition, religious individuals/beliefs are irrational. That's why I pay very little attention to them.

It is illogical and fallacious to declare because they are irrational in one aspect they are completely irrational.

If you mean the persons, I completely agree. I can see how the wording might have come across that way, although it was not intented to.

After all, human emotions tend towards irrationality. It is as fallacious, in fact, as dismissing the atheistic and adeistic as remoreless.

(Adeistic is made up: It refers to having no divinity as opposed to no religion. I got no religion but I got my deity. He just happens to be Reality. The words are functionally interchangable, ergo all of this is extraneous.)

Out of curiousity (not nitpicking), do you refer to reality as "he" intentionally, or do you actually mean "it" as your deity? I'm assuming you don't actually apply a gender definition to the concept of reality...?

[Robert Walper]

By definition, religious individuals/beliefs are irrational.

A fairly meaningless sentence. Religious beliefs are irrational, but all humans are irrational, to one degree or another.

No dispute there.

Borg fanwank is also irrational.

How are hobbies or interests irrational?

[imperfect vision]

Incorrect. Religious beliefs are irrational because they are not supported by evidence, but instead by personal belief. Whether or not they are tarnished is a completely different issue. Irrational is different than worthless. Love is, after all, an emotion and thus irrational.

Well the original idea of a religious/personal belief is pure. It turns into a game of telephone when it is spread around and loses parts, picks up other things here, etc. Just because something also is tarnished does not mean it is worthless either - some people just don't need shiny and new all the time.

Evidence in a religious/afterlife/lack-thereof sense is bogus on all counts. Yes, you get old, yes you die, yes your body turns into worm food. There is, at the time, no way to investigate what happens to the spirit that occupies the mortal husk afterwards. Anyone who currently describes a tunnel or having dinner with Elvis is marked as a lunatic and tossed in an asylum, or left to their own devices where they're convinced that the gateway to heaven is acquired by drowning birds. Others write books and movies. You can't get evidence on a non-corporeal level. Sure there's two dudes on cable TV who go out and prove/disprove ghosts 'n shit. That doesn't mean anything on a grander scale.

Emotions don't fill a physical need in and of themselves, but they serve as a tool to do so. "I'm horny, therefore I want to get it on. To get it on, I either have to feign interest or become actually involved with another person's life to fulfill my need."

I guess the question turns into "What do people expect other people to be?" Do they just fill their needs and die? Holy crap, if that's the case then, since we only live on average 75 years, then why have society come down so hard on us and have a rigid set of rules that makes our lives miserable?