Get the latest Penn EVERYDAY: crackle.com Penn explains his philosophy on good parenting. WhenPenn Jillette has an opinion it’s a safe bet he won’t hold back. Upload your own reaction and get the rants rolling! Tune in each week for new insight and agitation. Follow PennSays on Twitter: twitter.com tags: Penn Says Parenting Doesn’t Matter His philosophy on good parenting. penn jillette teller bullshit showtime crackle vlog commentary honest libretarian atheist
#1 by stfwho on November 20th, 2010
Quote
@acestringpicker Buddhists are atheists, Jains are atheists, Scientologists are atheists. They don’t believe in God. A theist is someone who believes in a God. An atheist is someone who does not believe in a God. Believing in God and having a religion are two different things.
#2 by acestringpicker on November 20th, 2010
Quote
@stfwho definition of theist is one who believes in god or god’s…the connotation of someone who is religious is someone who believes in god or god’s…considering the “a”(anti) in athiest it would make me believe they are anti god or god’s and therefore anti religion…
#3 by doombuggy123 on November 20th, 2010
Quote
Do these studies only pertain to a child’s success in pursuing a career and/or their IQ or something? Because I find it really difficult to believe that reading or not reading to your kids has no affect on their well-being and overall happiness. But then I find it really hard to believe that happier children aren’t more likely to be successful and confidant.
#4 by stfwho on November 20th, 2010
Quote
@acestringpicker Atheism isn’t anti-religion, Atheism is just the absence of religious beliefs. When an atheist becomes anti-religious, its not because he’s an atheist, it’s because he’s anti-religious.
#5 by SurferRosa79 on November 20th, 2010
Quote
@alcestess I believe that’s called good parenting.
#6 by alcestess on November 20th, 2010
Quote
Great point. Love is far more important in a child’s life than trying every little gimmick to make them smarter. I came from a relatively poor family, but my parents spent a lot of time with me, reading to me and helping with homework. I had a 4.0 and was the first in the family to attend college. I now have a M.S. in biology. It wasn’t reading to me that made me more successful. I think it was the fact that they spent time with me and encouraged my passions.
#7 by iamtheonlysircracker on November 20th, 2010
Quote
ah OK i feel like it gives crape about the Geno its the time you give them that makes them, I am a foster parent and i see my kids in me every day wow i am a f up lol
#8 by 1thruZ on November 20th, 2010
Quote
You read to your kids because you’re genetically more intelligent than other parents, which makes reading to them irrelevant because they’re going to be smart anyways.
#9 by Damnationization on November 20th, 2010
Quote
Parenting dos effect a child. This is common knowledge. It effects the childs in various ways. Children often repeat the actions of there parents. Be this helping others or doing drugs. There are varoius factors such as genetics, but come on realy parenting dosn’t matter. Bullshit.
#10 by phillipskid32 on November 20th, 2010
Quote
i wish all the vids i watched had the warning language thing at the beginning
#11 by PsypherDeus on November 20th, 2010
Quote
I love Penn and 98% of what he says, But I dont buy this completely. I think a genetic potential is valid but what we do with that potential does matter. just like physical Genetics might determine you will not be a midget or a giant. But if your potential is 5’3″ to 5’9″ the right diet helps you realize the higher end. The right guidance and examples are food for behaviour. But not guarantees.
#12 by pennsays on November 20th, 2010
Quote
Hi Penn fans. Penn Says videos have been discontinued, so you won’t be seeing any new content on here. You can check out our Profile on our Channel Page for more info. We’ll still be checking in, so hope to keep chatting with you all! Thanks!
#13 by PsypherDeus on November 20th, 2010
Quote
I love Penn and 98% of what he says, But I dont buy this completely. I think a genetic potential is valid but what we do with that potential does matter. just like physical Genetics might determine you will not be a midget or a giant. But if your potential is 5’3″ to 5’9″ the right diet helps you realize the higher end. The right guidance and examples are food for behaviour. But not guarantees.
#14 by AkaoKiyotsu on November 20th, 2010
Quote
@acestringpicker Atheism is more a belief that strongly disagrees with other beliefs, you’re thinking of secular humanism. Atheism is more invested in science and reason, pardon me if I am incorrect.
#15 by SendTedEmail on November 20th, 2010
Quote
Brilliant Pen, well thought.
#16 by pennsays on November 20th, 2010
Quote
There’s an entire book on this subject called The Nurture Assumption by Judith Rich Harris.
#17 by jeromemayle99 on November 20th, 2010
Quote
I love watching these, because I aways love hearing a different point of view, however…yes, you knew there was going to be a “but”, I learned a great deal from my mother and father, from what they taught me and from watching their mistakes as well. Lol also I agree that atheism is like science, they are their own religion..in as much as that they NEVER shut up regarding their point of view. At this point I’m surprised their not passing out literature, and knocking door to door
#18 by cdh98 on November 20th, 2010
Quote
this piss me off more than any other topic I have heard on Penn says, my father raised me and my bother with out our mother, the fact that someone saying all he did was provide money is bullshit I don’t care if it helped test scores or not it mattered and on weather there is or is not a god in the words of George Carlin keep thy fucking religion to thy self something atheist can’t seem to do
#19 by OKandNOWwhat on November 20th, 2010
Quote
@Tile700
God doesn’t make sense 2 those who don’t have His Spirit. I know & have met God, & I know others who have @ least encountered Him. However, I can’t empirically prove this 2 U, just as U can’t prove that U are in love. As a child cannot fathom the actions of its parent because of factors that are beyond the child’s ken, so God works His wonders w/o answering petulant demands. Rather than scrutinizing God upon faulty premises, one must submit (give under) to understand (stand under) God.
#20 by Tile700 on November 20th, 2010
Quote
God doesn’t make sense, that is why he does not trust god. Many many people actually know the book’s author, but can you tell me one person who knows or has ever met god. No one does, so how can anyone easily believe in something that completely defies logic. I hope their is something beyond this world, but I am who I am because I want to be, not because something or anyone else wants be to be it.
#21 by OKandNOWwhat on November 20th, 2010
Quote
It’s a pleasure to make U laugh.
What I meant was, that if he rejects an omniscient, omnipotent Entity, then why accept the verdict of a book written for fun, since the greater includes the lesser? Put another way: denial of an ultimate authority renders all authority conditional or even negligible. That is, Penn doesn’t trust God because he doesn’t know God, so why would he trust the book’s author, whom he also doesn’t know? And how would one determine the honesty of an unknown man? Bless U
#22 by acestringpicker on November 20th, 2010
Quote
…..you make me laugh, im not even trying to instigate an argument, and maybe i don’t know what science is. However my main point is the fact that your original statement “rhetorical question” didn’t make sense to me. Maybe i am the idiot, seeing how a rhetorical question need not be answered, but whether or not one believes in God holds no clout in whether or not one trusts the statements of another. Apples in oranges. I don’t believe in the Christian God, but i trust the honest man
#23 by OKandNOWwhat on November 20th, 2010
Quote
Mate, science does not say the Loch Ness monster does not exist. Science says that all evidence that has been presented is at best inconclusive or doubtful. You cannot prove a negative, though you seem to be attempting to verify the postulate: “acestringpicker does not know what ‘science’ means.”
#24 by acestringpicker on November 20th, 2010
Quote
i responded to you down below when i responded to pennsays….trying to kill two birds with one stone
#25 by acestringpicker on November 20th, 2010
Quote
yeah i’ve been watching Crackle ever since i found out Penn did this stuff…it’s quite interesting…oh and @OKandNOWwhat, i didn’t realize that your comment warranted a response from me, but since you feel otherwise…
the lock ness monster has never been seen and documented by a scientist…science says it doesn’t exist…so if you don’t think that is scientific then i take it you believe in old nessy and that you are a crazy…there lol