Court: Atheists Failed to Show Words 'Under God' Harmed Their Children

originally posted by: idmonster
a reply to: beezzer

I agree, but just to play devils advocate....

What if every drink you ordered came with an olive and the bartenders reply was,

"just take them out if you don't like 'em*

Then I'd order a scotch.



Your analogy would only be valid if I were forced to drink such a vile concoction.

Man, i wish i was back in school, ill show them how to rebel. Ill just shout random gods name while saying it.

"...under Allah!!"
"...under...Unicorn"
"..Under Leprechaun"

a reply to: xuenchen

It doesn't belong in the pledge. There is a sizeable group in this country who know organized religion is nothing more than a load of hooey designed to keep sheep, who can't think for themselves, under control with lighter pockets. God may or may not exist, but it is a private affair. Even you Christians should know Matthew chapter 6, verses 5-6, but you don't because you cherry pick.

When thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.
But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.

Adding God to the pledge is a not-so-subtle attempt to make it a prayer, or invocation which is exactly as the bible commands you believers to NOT DO! So the bible is calling all of you hypocrites! Have a nice day!

a reply to: luciddream

I wish I would have done that.

a reply to: th3dudeabides

Hmmm that's all fine and everything but then why isn't it called "the prayer of allegiance?"
thanks for the course in bible study

a reply to: luciddream

Why weren't they smart enough to push the ladder over to the shower spigot and cover it or turn it around?

originally posted by: WarminIndy
a reply to: luciddream

Why weren't they smart enough to push the ladder over to the shower spigot and cover it or turn it around?

Im assuming they are monkeys and their knowledge of how certain human contraption works is still mysterious to them. or.. you know.. their previous generation didn't bother to teach them why and told them this is how they always done it.

If they are any smarter, zoo would be not enough to hold them lol.

originally posted by: WarminIndy
a reply to: luciddream

Why weren't they smart enough to push the ladder over to the shower spigot and cover it or turn it around?

Given enough time and incentive, I think they would have. But the purpose of the experiment did not include teaching the monkeys how to cheat the experiment.

originally posted by: luciddream

originally posted by: WarminIndy
a reply to: luciddream

Why weren't they smart enough to push the ladder over to the shower spigot and cover it or turn it around?

Im assuming they are monkeys and their knowledge of how certain human contraption works is still mysterious to them. or.. you know.. their previous generation didn't bother to teach them why and told them this is how they always done it.

If they are any smarter, zoo would be not enough to hold them lol.

A ladder is a human contraption, but it in essence is the same idea as climbing trees.

But see, here's the problem, if they make the association with banana = cold shower, so don't climb ladder, beat up one who does, why couldn't they make the association that if climbing = something achieved, then use the ladder in a different way or just knock the ladder over.

It was their association that had nothing to do with the previous generation. I don't think their previous generation went through the same experiment.

But you know, bright little monkeys just never figure out that sometimes, reward is worth effort. After all, one banana is enough for only one monkey, they didn't get that idea either. And that's like people, there's only one reward so let's make sure nobody gets the reward. Let's beat up those who are trying to get the reward.

See how that works?

The Pledge of Allegiance that says "Under God" is for all people. And if you think it is a prayer, then man, you should read the Declaration of Independence.

IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness

You have a problem with the pledge and the very document that declared our independence directly and explicitly says God. Would you like to no longer be independent or would you like to just turn us back over to the Queen?

originally posted by: AfterInfinity

originally posted by: WarminIndy
a reply to: luciddream

Why weren't they smart enough to push the ladder over to the shower spigot and cover it or turn it around?

Given enough time and incentive, I think they would have. But the purpose of the experiment did not include teaching the monkeys how to cheat the experiment.

Is that really cheating? No one said they couldn't use the ladder in different ways. I think the results of the experiment would be published differently if they did.

a reply to: WarminIndy

Monkeys are simpler than human beings. They encounter an obstacle, they avoid obstacle, particularly if they'r guaranteed food and shelter merely by existing. It's not like their lives depended on that banana, and if they were left with no food for long enough, guaranteed, they would have been beating each other up to get the banana even with the "rain storm" in full effect. In short, the banana was technically unnecessary and I think on some primitive level, they realized it.

Meanwhile, using the ladder to foil the experiment requires the sort of sideways thinking that monkeys employ only when they really have to or want to. And given the circumstances, it just wasn't worth it. If I had been those monkeys, I would have said screw the banana, I'll just eat the regular stuff they feed us because there's no risk in it. They'll take care of me regardless of whether I try or not.

And that's exactly what happened.

a reply to: WarminIndy

if they make the association with banana = cold shower, so don't climb ladder, beat up one who does, why couldn't they make the association that if climbing = something achieved, then use the ladder in a different way or just knock the ladder over.

We dont know what the association they thought it was ....

It could even be touching the ladder = cold shower. they just know that either thinking about the getting the Banana or even taking that path to the banana was a taboo.

*Ladder is permanently attached to the ground*, maybe now you can see the point behind it?





Im pretty sure, when they left the queen, they left the religion as well.

Then again, why would i want to follow something that was later added?

That just proves it can be modified again.

a reply to: xuenchen

I would be more upset at requiring a minor child to agree to a verbal contract. They don't know what they are agreeing to.

originally posted by: WarminIndy

originally posted by: AfterInfinity

originally posted by: WarminIndy
a reply to: luciddream

Why weren't they smart enough to push the ladder over to the shower spigot and cover it or turn it around?

Given enough time and incentive, I think they would have. But the purpose of the experiment did not include teaching the monkeys how to cheat the experiment.

Is that really cheating? No one said they couldn't use the ladder in different ways. I think the results of the experiment would be published differently if they did.

I think you'll find the scientists didn't actually give the monkeys any instructions, per se. It was more of a Pavlov experiment than a guided study, so no, they didn't say anything like that. They just stuck them in the room and relied on years worth of comprehension involving monkey psychology and behavior.

But there was a definite point to the experiment, so yes, moving the ladder would probably have screwed with the results and NOT given them the answer they were looking for, other than that the monkeys were decidedly uncooperative.

originally posted by: luciddream
a reply to: WarminIndy

*Ladder is permanently attached to the ground*, maybe now you can see the point behind it?

So sit and pout about it? Yes, I can now see how monkeys are like some people. Can't get what you want, beat someone else up for it and sit and pout because things ain't going your way.

Oh, I think I will just sit here and pout because someone else says "God", well don't say it then. You don't have to beat up the people who do, which by the way, I believe in God, so I just shrug my shoulders at your response, because that's your right to not believe. I'm not Westboro Baptist.

Im pretty sure, when they left the queen, they left the religion as well.

Wrong, the Anglican church operated pretty much in full swing, and William Penn actually said Pennsylvania was made for people to practice whatever religion they wanted, and Penn was Quaker.

No, the religion was not left behind.

originally posted by: AfterInfinity

originally posted by: WarminIndy

originally posted by: AfterInfinity

originally posted by: WarminIndy
a reply to: luciddream

Why weren't they smart enough to push the ladder over to the shower spigot and cover it or turn it around?

Given enough time and incentive, I think they would have. But the purpose of the experiment did not include teaching the monkeys how to cheat the experiment.

Is that really cheating? No one said they couldn't use the ladder in different ways. I think the results of the experiment would be published differently if they did.

I think you'll find the scientists didn't actually give the monkeys any instructions, per se. It was more of a Pavlov experiment than a guided study, so no, they didn't say anything like that. They just stuck them in the room and relied on years worth of comprehension involving monkey psychology and behavior.

But there was a definite point to the experiment, so yes, moving the ladder would probably have screwed with the results and NOT given them the answer they were looking for, other than that the monkeys were decidedly uncooperative.

So they had an agenda that would only work if the monkeys cooperated, to prove the agenda?

So it was not a true scientific experiment, but one made strictly to enforce an agenda. That's what I am seeing in this answer.

a reply to: WarminIndy

Are you going to tell me what the weather forecast is if I ask you the airspeed of an unladen swallow? Scientists were testing a natural response to a very specific scenario. They weren't forcing an answer, but they didn't want an inaccurate one either.

originally posted by: WarminIndy

originally posted by: AfterInfinity

originally posted by: WarminIndy

originally posted by: AfterInfinity

originally posted by: WarminIndy
a reply to: luciddream

Why weren't they smart enough to push the ladder over to the shower spigot and cover it or turn it around?

Given enough time and incentive, I think they would have. But the purpose of the experiment did not include teaching the monkeys how to cheat the experiment.

Is that really cheating? No one said they couldn't use the ladder in different ways. I think the results of the experiment would be published differently if they did.

I think you'll find the scientists didn't actually give the monkeys any instructions, per se. It was more of a Pavlov experiment than a guided study, so no, they didn't say anything like that. They just stuck them in the room and relied on years worth of comprehension involving monkey psychology and behavior.

But there was a definite point to the experiment, so yes, moving the ladder would probably have screwed with the results and NOT given them the answer they were looking for, other than that the monkeys were decidedly uncooperative.

So they had an agenda that would only work if the monkeys cooperated, to prove the agenda?

So it was not a true scientific experiment, but one made strictly to enforce an agenda. That's what I am seeing in this answer.

You are purposely skewing what was said. An experiment can have a point as well as an assumed answer (it's called a hypothesis). The experiment works by creating a situation where the assumed answer becomes correct. That doesn't mean that the scientists FORCED the answer to be correct, just that they did an experiment, said they thought that such and such was what would happen, then watched what did happen.

By the way, nailing a ladder to the ground makes sense since if this same experiment occurred naturally in nature, the monkeys wouldn't be able to move the thing the bananas were perched on anyways since the thing would probably be a tree. So a movable ladder is irrelevant to the experiment. You are just being adversarial for the sake of being adversarial.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: WarminIndy

originally posted by: AfterInfinity

originally posted by: WarminIndy

originally posted by: AfterInfinity

originally posted by: WarminIndy
a reply to: luciddream

Why weren't they smart enough to push the ladder over to the shower spigot and cover it or turn it around?

Given enough time and incentive, I think they would have. But the purpose of the experiment did not include teaching the monkeys how to cheat the experiment.

Is that really cheating? No one said they couldn't use the ladder in different ways. I think the results of the experiment would be published differently if they did.

I think you'll find the scientists didn't actually give the monkeys any instructions, per se. It was more of a Pavlov experiment than a guided study, so no, they didn't say anything like that. They just stuck them in the room and relied on years worth of comprehension involving monkey psychology and behavior.

But there was a definite point to the experiment, so yes, moving the ladder would probably have screwed with the results and NOT given them the answer they were looking for, other than that the monkeys were decidedly uncooperative.

So they had an agenda that would only work if the monkeys cooperated, to prove the agenda?

So it was not a true scientific experiment, but one made strictly to enforce an agenda. That's what I am seeing in this answer.

You are purposely skewing what was said. An experiment can have a point as well as an assumed answer (it's called a hypothesis). The experiment works by creating a situation where the assumed answer becomes correct. That doesn't mean that the scientists FORCED the answer to be correct, just that they did an experiment, said they thought that such and such was what would happen, then watched what did happen.

By the way, nailing a ladder to the ground makes sense since if this same experiment occurred naturally in nature, the monkeys wouldn't be able to move the thing the bananas were perched on anyways since the thing would probably be a tree. So a movable ladder is irrelevant to the experiment. You are just being adversarial for the sake of being adversarial.

Adversarial to your opinion? Because I disagree? Am I your enemy, that you call me an adversary?

I disagree with you and your assumptions, does that make me an enemy? If you have taken the position of know-it-all authority on a given subject and then get in a huff when people disagree with you, what makes you the know-it-all authority in the first place?

I am being adversarial to the scientific experiment, not you. I asked questions about the experiment, I commented about the results of the experiment, but hey, since you are the know-it-all authority on monkey experiments, then perhaps you could share with us the monkey experiments that you have performed.

OK, so monkeys can't move trees, got it. So what would happen if the monkey got to the top, peeled the banana and then redistributed the wealth? How would that have changed the results?

I think every behavior should be noted, not just the ones that fulfill the agenda. After all, isn't noting all behaviors part of science experiments?

originally posted by: WarminIndy

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: WarminIndy

originally posted by: AfterInfinity

originally posted by: WarminIndy

originally posted by: AfterInfinity

originally posted by: WarminIndy
a reply to: luciddream

Why weren't they smart enough to push the ladder over to the shower spigot and cover it or turn it around?

Given enough time and incentive, I think they would have. But the purpose of the experiment did not include teaching the monkeys how to cheat the experiment.

Is that really cheating? No one said they couldn't use the ladder in different ways. I think the results of the experiment would be published differently if they did.

I think you'll find the scientists didn't actually give the monkeys any instructions, per se. It was more of a Pavlov experiment than a guided study, so no, they didn't say anything like that. They just stuck them in the room and relied on years worth of comprehension involving monkey psychology and behavior.

But there was a definite point to the experiment, so yes, moving the ladder would probably have screwed with the results and NOT given them the answer they were looking for, other than that the monkeys were decidedly uncooperative.

So they had an agenda that would only work if the monkeys cooperated, to prove the agenda?

So it was not a true scientific experiment, but one made strictly to enforce an agenda. That's what I am seeing in this answer.

You are purposely skewing what was said. An experiment can have a point as well as an assumed answer (it's called a hypothesis). The experiment works by creating a situation where the assumed answer becomes correct. That doesn't mean that the scientists FORCED the answer to be correct, just that they did an experiment, said they thought that such and such was what would happen, then watched what did happen.

By the way, nailing a ladder to the ground makes sense since if this same experiment occurred naturally in nature, the monkeys wouldn't be able to move the thing the bananas were perched on anyways since the thing would probably be a tree. So a movable ladder is irrelevant to the experiment. You are just being adversarial for the sake of being adversarial.

Adversarial to your opinion? Because I disagree? Am I your enemy, that you call me an adversary?

I disagree with you and your assumptions, does that make me an enemy? If you have taken the position of know-it-all authority on a given subject and then get in a huff when people disagree with you, what makes you the know-it-all authority in the first place?

I am being adversarial to the scientific experiment, not you. I asked questions about the experiment, I commented about the results of the experiment, but hey, since you are the know-it-all authority on monkey experiments, then perhaps you could share with us the monkey experiments that you have performed.

I never claimed to be a know-it-all authority on anything nor did I accuse you of being adversarial towards me. You weren't even talking to me to begin with, so that would be impossible unless you were psychic and knew ahead of time that I would comment in the thread. I was just explaining how experiments, hypotheses, and controls work, which you are clearly trying to claim lack of knowledge in.

OK, so monkeys can't move trees, got it. So what would happen if the monkey got to the top, peeled the banana and then redistributed the wealth? How would that have changed the results?

Then that would have been noted and mentioned in the results, but it wasn't now was it?

I think every behavior should be noted, not just the ones that fulfill the agenda. After all, isn't noting all behaviors part of science experiments?

Yes they should, and they were as far as we know. You are asking a what if question that didn't happen so you have no foundation to say that this information isn't being discussed. The results were that the monkeys beat and prohibited other monkeys from climbing the ladder. They DIDN'T have one monkey climb to the top and distribute all the bananas equally, so it doesn't need to be mentioned.