Thanks, but I'm perfectly open to all (or most) opinions.

What I'm not open to is people coming in and having nothing more to say than "That's stupid" or "You're stupid". It's not constructive, and frankly, all it does is waste a few bytes on some server out there in the world.

He had a lot more to say than just 'You're stupid'. Quite a bit more in fact! Do you have trouble reading? :~)

Oh, fine then!


What I'm not open to are opinions that begin with, and end in, "you're stupid", and put words in my mouth. I didn't say (or at least mean) half the things he said I'd said.

Focusing on that, I end up ignoring the rest. :/

A bit better?

YAY! I'm "that guy." I honestly think "Unknown" works as a custom title for me....

So, where exactly are we in the discussion? Seriously, I'm lost.

Sass, it has been clearly illustrated by LordSword that some kids do, in fact, react badly, and that the possibility of long-term emotional effects exists. It was exciting to find presents under the tree even after I discovered where they came from. Would you laugh and say retard if it was your kid crying because you lied to him/her? Do you have confidence that you could explain the difference between that lie and a "real lie" in a way that wouldn't set them up to be suckers later in life?

I agree with all of that, but it doesn't say anything about a belief in Santa Claus. Nobody's telling their kids that Harry Potter or Frodo Baggins are real people who'll punish them if they don't behave.
Do you plan to tell them that it was all a ruse to teach them the dangers of taking things at face value? Maybe they'd learn the lesson, maybe they'd lose their trust in you, just a little. Do you really want to take that chance?

I'll teach my kids to read, and to dissect literature and film to uncover the meanings behind them. I'll teach them about the real magic in the world, instead of the manufactured kind that you lose faith in, like Santa Claus. I won't jeopardize a trusting relationship with my kids for the sake of a viral meme.

I like to pretend and imagine, I am curious about the world around me, and it has NOT ONE THING to do with Santa Claus. I focus on REAL things that are magical and fascinating, like computers, galaxies, and the spirals at the centres of sunflowers, and it's through things like this that I will foster a lust for life and growth in my children. I don't need some cop-out like Santa Claus to trick my kids into enjoying their lives or being good people or finding beauty in existence.

Maybe that's because these people you speak of were brought up giving under special circumstances, like Christmas.

QFT. I won't teach my kids to accept authoritarian bullshit under any circumstances. I wouldn't want my kids to forgive me for lying to them just to get their obedience. I want to teach my kids good judgement, not obedience.

Man, if you really think the world is that bad, then don't bring another life into it. It's misinformation because you're misinforming your kids about reality. Simple concept. There are far more interesting things in the Cosmos to wonder about than how all those presents got there.

I'll tell my kids about the best things I've learned from all the great thinkers in history, from Jesus, Buddha, and Mohammad, to Dawkins, Sagan, and Jung, and above all I'll teach them the importance of empirical thought and meditation. I won't tell them what to believe, but I'll certainly let them know what I believe when they eventually ask. If I get parents complaining to me because my son/daughter told little Jonny the truth about Santa, I'll tell them what my reasoning is, and if they don't like it, they can go eat wang.

hahahahaha...good luck with that. seriously, you want to be a parent? and then teach your kids to disobey you? that'll work fantastically.

I almost took all that other stuff seriously until i read that, and learned that you have no idea what you're talking about.

Yeah, Santa Clause is the great undoing - he is the epitome of truth and lie (Santa is actually an anagram of Satan, did you know that?) - and if you dare teach your kids to believe in him, it will cause irreparable damage.

Phoenix, your kids are going to be A: brats or B: miserable. And that's not me, that's an actual prediction of Nostradamus.

whinehurst, sarcastically paraphrasing a tiny fraction of my post doesn't add a damn thing to this thread. Please state a fucking point that you can at least try to back up. Give me some reasoning behind this idea that kids should be unquestioningly obedient. What possible problem could arise where my kids should obey me without being given a reasonable explanation why? Why should I set up a model for life for my kids that I don't want them to emulate later in life?

My kids won't need to obey me once they understand language well enough. You get pets to obey you, because they're stupid and don't understand things sometimes, like the danger of getting hit by a car if they wander onto the road. Kids can understand explanations like Road=Car=Possible Death. My kids are gonna have to empirically discern that they should consider my advice with the knowledge that I'm more experienced, and that I wouldn't lie about what I've seen, where I've been, what I've done, or what I've learned to be true. They'll do that on their own because I'll teach them empirical thought and I'll be consistent and truthful. They will respect themselves AND me because I will have set the model for them. Kids learn fast from the example scenarios you present in early childhood.

I would rather have kids that enjoy talking to me and trust me enough to come to me with any problems they might need help with. Teaching kids to obey you means teaching them to be motivated by their fear of you, and I would be a prick if I taught my kids that fear should ever be a motivation.

Sorry, Phoenix, perhaps i should have specified that I live in the real world. It's nice here, you should visit sometime.

There's really nothing i can say to "back up my point" because it's mostly common sense and the ability to not be delusional.

Now i'm not trying to dissuade you from raising your kids however you see fit, i'm just saying that basing parenting skills off of Dawson's Creek or Seventh Heaven or whatever bullshit world you think we live in simply doesn't work. This isn't so much an argument as it is a friendly reminder that kids don't reason empirically- they act to satiate their desires. And if you don't instill some fear into them, as good parents do, they'll just grow up to be assholes.

I know it's not as nice as the bubbly happy time world you think we live in, but it's the way things actually happen.

Sometimes fear is a grim necessity because people naturally challenge authority. I'm dealing with the terrible 2's right now. Rebellion is on like Donkey Kong when they find out they have choices.

As mine have aged the concept of consequences get challenged with greater complexity and ferver.

Sadly to say you have to show time and again that you can & will enforce your will in a given circumstance to kids.

Even if they know you will come down like a tonn of bricks on em' they will still experiment and test the boundaries.

I spell it loud & clear and hold the line cause I care.

The problem with what you intend is how you seem to plan on going about it.
Children go to authority figures when they need help. This is a fact. None of this "I just want to be my kid's friend." Its pretty much impossible to achieve, and its that sort of bullshit which puts kids in the juvie. If you want to be a parent, then you have to act like a parent. Parents, by definition, are authority figures. When you attempt to undermine this basic aspect of your family, the child will latch onto other authority figures to fill this gap. And you certainly have no control over who this might be. The kid is then victim to circumstance.

If you expect for them to trust and confide in you, and for that matter even care what you say, you must establish yourself as an authority figure. Fear is a necessary part of establishing this.

Fear has a perfectly legitimate function in humans, and to write it all off as inherently bad is pretty much the worst start to a parenting philosophy this side of Dr. Spock.



Getting topical again: I don't think I'm going to have kids. I would probably fuck them up too much by never arguing consistently from any viewpoint; one day I'll be arguing from some buddhist point of view, and another day I'll be explaining things from a nihilist point of view.

I can establish myself as an authority figure early in my kids' lives, but at a certain point my authority will become irrelevant. Knowing what you know (that your kids will experiment regardless), wouldn't you rather that they know you will offer them advice from a well-balanced and knowledgable perspective?

I understand that toddlers need authority figures, but parenting goes on to include everything right up to high school and, if you do your job well, beyond. As your children age, the need for authority wanes and is replaced by the need for wisdom and guidance. Not to say that your authority should diminish to zero, because they need to know that they'll get an ass-whuppin' or you'll sell their favorite console or somethin' if they steal your car, but I think you should be VERY restrictive over when you actually use your authori-tah, lest you become more of an irrelevant and distant boogy-man than an actual figure of authority and respect. I know of this possibility because I've lived it, and I will take every measure I can to avoid it.

Yup, couldn't agree more. I can tell my five-year-old to stay away from my weed stash, but eventually that kid's gonna meet someone who deals or smokes in school, and I can't stop him from smokin'. What I CAN do, however, is educate my kids on the long- and short-term pros and cons of any drugs they might ask about, with help from Erowid.org and any personal experience I can offer. It is thus that I establish myself as an authority figure (by being a wise and knowledgeable benefactor) without necessarily requiring 100% obedience.

Keep in mind that I'm not talking about toddlers who have barely grasped language. Your young ones simply won't recognize you as a fearsome character after a certain age, and you've gotta recognize that age and start using logic, reason, and facts to keep your kids from doing stupid shit that will bring them undue pain or suffering, since "because I said so" and "because I'll fucking smack/ground you" ceases to hold any relevance once kids discover the possibilities of choice and subterfuge.

I won't pretend that you can raise young children without some measure of authority, but I want my children to question authority in all it's forms, as I have learned to, once they've become active thinkers and not merely desire-driven machines. I plan to nurture them until they've reached this point, and then offer my assistance and guidance whenever possible. I can't stop my kids from seeking experience, but I can offer them a little of my own.

Well, just let your kids know that you can, in fact, be wrong, and that they should research these viewpoints and theories for themselves, and devise their own worldview from there. Buddhism, as I've studied it, is mostly a theory of empirical thought anyway, and nihilism also plays a big part in it. Nobody said you had to adhere to any singular system of thought. Even LordSword borrows from multiple systems of thought, it's part of having a balanced perspective. I'll probably teach from a mostly taoist perspective, but like I said, I'll be borrowing from a LOT of different sources.

Simple answer: To educate them in order for them to become informed, responsible adults. You don't have to agree with something in order to be aware of it. I myself am an atheist and have a lot of problems with religion, but it is so all-pervasive that you need to be aware of the influence it has.

How about telling them stories about what different people believe, and how we should respect what people believe, even if we don't agree with it? You could start out with a really easy example that has nothing to do with religion, and gradually move on to stories about religions such as Christianity and Islam. In any case, I'd try to leave personal baggage out of it (although it's hard), because it will make the interaction with other, religious children difficult for them.

I want to see someone qualify this need to teach children they must never question authority and must simultaneously love and fear persons of authority such as parents or non-existent divine father figures. I shudder to think where society would be if it wasn't for the dissenters and contrarians, who we all owe much thanks, who managed to win great social changes through their opposition. If it wasn't for the courage of people like Rosa Parks (a simple and obvious example) we'd all be living in the stone age.

Telling me that challenge to authority is a wrong act is both highly unintelligible and morally contemptible. Maybe some of you should emmigrate to North Korea since you fancy this authoritative and totalitarian principle so much.

I think challenging authority is a healthy skill that should be cultivated with discipline and control.
I have lively debates with my oldest about what is deemed fair, what is right & wrong and the notion of freedom.

My concern is the motives behind the challenges.
Is it for the sake of virtue or vice that a challenge is made & what is the definition of the perceived virtue or vice.

In the past I beheld the ugliness of the "wrong" to appreciate the beauty of the "right". As a parent I encourage this too but under loving guidance for the sake of safety.

I don't think they would be the target if harassment unless you put them in a priviate christan school wearing shirts that said I hate the thought of god on them so please lets just move on to next subject.


My best friend scott hates god, the thought of him and and anything to do with god. He recently stoped letting his wifes best friend watch the kids because they prayed with his kid. He is rasing his two sons to not believe in god. I told him to at least give his kids a moral code to follow if he won't tell them about the ten commandments and such.


I would stress those commandments in your OWN way to your kids. You don't have to read it to them verbetum or anything but teach them its not right to go out and kill, lie etc. I may not agree with your views but I'm sure we could agree that right and wrong are still right and wrong even if you do or don't believe in god.

Right and wrong are right and wrong not because it was written in some book, but because you and society defines them as such. I agree, there have to be boundaries, but this has nothing to do with religious beliefs. The fact that someone doesn't believe in God doesn't mean that they are any more or less likely to go out and kill someone (actually, a significant amount of people kill in the name of God!).

Ok, but the laws that we obey are written in books.
Ultimately we align ourselves with the written law because of a respect for the authority that enforces the law.

Recently my kid asked "what if there is no God, what if its a scam?"
I responded with "then I can do what I want as long as the police don't find out. I can be as selfish as I want & I dont have to work on being loving and kind to my family. As long as I am smart enough & strong enough I can do whatever I want."

This revelation caused a look of utter horrer on his face.

The "authority" issue is a heavy deal, I wonder how atheist parents hurdle this one?

I think God is a scam and I'm a good person.

Explain that one away.

(Also, how long does it take you to figure out you're not welcome in a community?)

I don't think God is a scam and occassionally I'm not a good person

Explain that one as well LordsSword

(Also, leave, because you keep making a mockery of a religion that I enjoy being apart of. It's people like you that make others view us as a joke.)

"good person" based on whose definition?
See when you go teaching a kid to be "good" it helps to lay out the parameters, give a moral map to align their course by.
The atheist has the challenge of getting this across because of the lack of a guide that is consistent over time.
The parent may be a good one but they are not perfect or consistent.
Society isn't either.
Once upon a time folks like me were fed to lions and burned at the stake. Time changes view on what is good.

So you're saying that athiests don't know how to be good? So you're only good if you do what it says in the bible? It says in the bible that it isn't through our works that we'll get into heaven, but by believing that the only son of God, Jesus, died on the cross to save us from our sin. So if it doesn't matter what we do, why would God bother making a guide for us?

Unlike you, I don't take my good/bad cues from one book.

I take cues from society and from how people would like to be treated. From history, from mistakes, from experience.

Not to pat myself on the back or anything here, but I figure I do a hell of a lot for people out of a hope for humanity. I don't need a book of rules to tell me to be kind to those around me - I figure it's my job as a fucking human being.

Which doesn't require a book. I dunno. Maybe I'm just more observant than you are.

You don't know jack shit about atheists - why are you making any conclusions about them? They are all very different.

We are our own guide.

You're brainwashing your child, but hey. If you want a robot for a son who doesn't know how to think for himself, more power to you.

Just keep him off my payroll and out of my neighborhood. I appreciate intelligence and critical thinking. Apparently, you don't.
So you just admitted that you're here - at Gamingforce - only to preach, then?

I won't reply to you anymore in this thread. You pretty much troll on these forums to incite religious debates wherever you go. You make a point of doing it, and you pull the whole "I am Christian and you hate me for it - like god said you would!" shit every time.

Learn to back yourself up with thought and critical thinking instead of scripture from a book. Maybe if you tried that, you'd be more welcome in the community.

What makes a Christian parent any more consistent than an Atheist parent?
No parent is perfect regardless of their religion.

I asked the question "good based on whose definition?" for a reason.
Sure they can be "good" but based on what system.
Society, history & experience are very fluid concepts depending on where you are and when you are in the world.
Remember I go by a 2000 yr. old book that was considered "good" for society at one time. Now its heavily disputed.

I would answer this but I wont do it here, PM me. The admins shut me down when I get on a roll.

Yes no parent is perfect but the book doesnt change. Its like the rules for sports. They are written down too so the game is played correctly.
A religious person can be held liable for "cheating" because of the standards they say they follow.
The atheist cant because "rules" don't really exist. They have guidelines but no real rules on morality to be held accountable to.

Of course it's heavily disputed. I dispute it all the time. It was written 2000 years ago, and now we have goofs like you trying to apply it like it was written yesterday. Yes, I admit, the bible has some awesome advice, and it's neat to read. But in today's society, we can't take it word for word. You have to take it with a grain of salt.