Epistomology by Kent of AvC

This is in response to two recent posts: one by Observer and one by Simon. Now, since at least the beginning of recorded history people have been trying to prove or disprove the existence of God. The results can be summed in two words: They failed. (Simon's recent attempt fall into this category.) If you see a claim of a proof god does or does not exist you can safely ignore it.

One strain of this falls into what is called "Synthetic a priori knowledge", knowledge of the real world obtained by pure thought. This strain was pushed by people like Descartes and Kant.  Descartes got as far as giving an argument that can be used to prove "I exist" everything else may be  figment of my imagination (your use of I and my may vary). Kant's example of synthetic a priori knowledge was Euclidean geometry which ran into problems with general relativity. In general synthetic a priori information does not exist. This includes all proofs of gods existence or non-existence.

Various ways of getting empirical knowledge have been proposed: induction (failed by Hume's argument), verification (a la positivists), falsification and so on. They all have their critics. There is/are various claims that a scientific method does not exist. However, I suggest it does and follows much like Observer's observations.

We have two entities to deal with: observations and models. We make observations and organize them into models (theories, paradigms, world views, etc). Models can not be verified (the failure of induction) or falsified (Duhem-Quine hypotheses). However we can compare models. This is very much in line with what Popper actually said (not the caricature of his work we often encounter).

Knowledge thus consists of model building and testing against observation. We can not say if a model is correct or incorrect but we can say which of two models is better: the one with the best track record of successful predictions for observations. Observer said that the models are fictions. In this he is channeling Einstein who claimed the central ideas in any model are probably wrong (his examples were Newton's fixed space time and the coordinates of general relativity).

Now to the question of does God exist. Simple procedure: construct a model with God and one without God and see if adding God or god increases the ability to make correct predictions. Laplace and Hawkins claim: That hypothesis (god) is unnecessary.

In conclusion: a useful discussion of God's or god's existence must be based on the ability of models containing God to have more predictive power than those without. 

As the raven said: This and nothing more.

Church Of Reality's "Hidden Agenda"

"Everybody has a Hidden Agenda

Does the Church of Reality have a hidden agenda? Do we have a secret plan? What is it we are "really" up to? In an age where everyone is lying about something, what is the Church of Reality really about? Is it politics? Is it world domination? Are we really Satan's minions?

So yeah, we have a plan. We have a plot. We are up to something. But what is it? Is the Church of Reality really going to reveal it? Sure we are!

Would we lie to you?

We are really just trying to trick religious people into thinking.

Our hidden agenda is - we are trying to trick people into thinking. Thinking about reality that is. We believe that if people start thinking about reality that it will cause them to ask themselves if what they believe in is real. Will this undermine faith? It will undermine blind faith. We want to perform a faith healing on faith itself so that the blindly faithful will see again. We want to take the blindness out of blind faith.

Making people think is what we are really up to. Realism is a religion of the mind. You try to resist it but you can't. You can pray and pray and as hard as you try not to - you just can't help it. All of a sudden there you are, thinking. Thinking about reality - reality the way it really is. It seduces you, sucks you in. You start wondering if what you believe is really real. The temptation is too strong to resist. You can feel reality all around you and you can't help but to wonder what it is. And when you are thinking about reality you are becoming real in the sacred moment. And during that time you become one of us.

Resistance is futile. ha ha ha ha ha ... heh."

The above is a direct quote from their terrific site.

Enjoy!

BBC Podcast : The Infinite Monkey Cage.

Irreverant and hilarious but with lots of science.

The Infinite Monkey Cage

"Science/comedy chat with Brian Cox, Robin Ince and guests. Witty, irreverent look at the world according to science with physicist Brian Cox and comedian Robin Ince. New Series starting on BBC Radio 4, Monday November 15th at 4.30pm for 4 weeks." --BBC Podcast site

Unintentional Comedy :-D

I like to delude myself into believing that I hang out on Internet debating news groups for the intellectual exchanges, and we do get some.

I'm pretty sure that the following type of exchange is why I really hang out on Internet debating news groups. (Despite my attempts to delude myself into believing otherwise ;-D

Unintentional comedy can be so much funnier than the real thing....

The topic of the debate (believe it or not) is the Historicity of the NT.

Undefined  is responding to a claim by a Christian that one of the NT genealogies is Mary's line and the other NT genealogy is Joseph's line in relation to Jesus and this, according him is why they are different.

Undefined doesn't identify himself as an atheist or Christian and responds by saying:
Neither genealogy mentions Mary. So, neither records Jesus' lineage through Mary.

Another Christian responds to Undefined with the following and then it starts:

Christian:
This is where you need to understand that only the *men* in a family were important. This comes about because Adam was told to be *fruitful and multiply* before he could name the woman *Eve*. And, because the man is the giver of life to his offspring. St. Thomas Aquinas said that the *sperm moves of its own volition.* Therefore man is the giver of life. And, to believe that God sent His Only Begotten Son to earth - it stands to reason that GOD - being a man - could give life to His Son - and So redeem us from Satan's sin in heaven and on earth.

The question would certainly then become - what is *life* - Is that tree outside my window *alive*.

Atheist:
Yes, it is. Unless it's dead.

Christian:
It is not *alive* with the same definition of *life* except in the English Language

Atheist:
Yes, it is. We share a common ancestor with trees, they are a living organism - they are born, they grow, they eat, they reproduce, they die - just like us.

Christian:
Well then why can't they talk to you

Atheist:
They don't have mouths. Or vocal chords. Or brains.

Mice can't talk to you. Do you think mice are alive? Babies can't talk to you. Do you think they are alive?

Christian:
 -- and why don't they obey you when you tell them to move over and give you room - or get away from your house a bit, because they are too close to the foundation.

Atheist:
Why don't you just pray to God to get him to move the tree for you?

Christian:
There is a difference between life that is the *breath of life* human beings receive at birth, and a tree.

Atheist:
No there isn't. We are similar in that we each have a life cycle.

Christian:
Of course, we both have *atoms* that are moving in us - but we don't both have a mind that can control what my next work I type is.

Atheist:
Having a mind isn't what defines being alive. Do you think that amoebas are alive? Are jellyfish alive?

Christian:
because that tree cannot get up and move over a bit where I would really like it to be.

Atheist:
Just because it isn't ambulatory doesn't mean it isn't alive. Do you think fish aren't alive because they can't walk?

Christian:
Like I am trying to explain.  In the English language we need a word for *life* that stands for human life, and a word for *life* that stands for plant life.

Atheist:
We already do - humans and plants. They are both members of the set of living organisms that live on Earth.

Christian:
In other words, the definition of *life* in the English Language is messed up to say the least,

Atheist:
What is "messed up" is your understanding of biology.

Christian:
Biology has nothing to do with this argument.

Atheist:
It has everything to do with this argument since biologists have learned to distinguish between living organisms and inanimate objects. Trees and humans are both living organisms.

Christian:
from the standpoint that an animal is alive because it can go anywhere it wants to when it wants to.

Atheist:
So by your definition a parapalegic isn't alive.

Christian:
A paraplegic is alive because they are a human being.

Atheist:
But they can't go anywhere they want, and you just said that "an animal is alive because it can go anywhere it wants to when it wants to." So by your definition, parapalegics are the same as trees. You are contradicting yourself.

Christian:
The tree is not truly alive - just like your wife's egg - is not truly alive because it cannot propel itself anywhere.

Atheist:
My wife's egg (I'm trying to keep a straight face here) isn't alive unless I fertilize it with my sperm. Once it is fertilized it is alive.

Christian:
Ah ha!  point I have been trying to make - and you just made it. The point in fact that the *male of the human species is the giver of life to his children.*

Atheist:
The point you were trying to make is that trees aren't alive.

Christian:
The fact that the *male of the human species* - reproduces Himself.

Atheist:
The human male does not "reproduce himself". The fertilized eggs gets one half of its DNA from the Mommy and the other half from the Daddy. If the human male "reproduced himself" then the human male would be no different from an amoeba.

Christian:
The fact that the *spirit* in your children came from the *male* of the family - and the fact that the female only puts the *human body* around the *soul* of a child.

Atheist:
If by "fact" you mean "uneducated lunacy", I agree!

Do you think a baby in the womb isn't alive?

Christian:
Yes, I believe a fetus is alive.

Atheist:
But babies in the womb can't go anywhere they want, and you just said that "an animal is alive because it can go anywhere it wants to when it wants to." So by your definition, babies in the womb are the same as trees - not alive. You are contradicting yourself.

Christian:
In fact since I have a child of my own, I know the supreme wonderful feeling of knowing that a child is alive inside of me.

Atheist:
Good for you.

So why was your baby alive even though it couldn't go where it wanted and, by your definition, a tree isn't alive because it can't go where it wants?

Christian:
I can remember when my husband reached over and felt that little one kick.  What joy. Of course, my ribs felts like they were getting kicked to smithereens. But the pain of childbirth was totally forgotten when I held that little one in my arms for the first time and counted the fingers and toes and saw the perfection that is *human beings*.

Atheist:
This is nice, but it doesn't explain why babies in the womb are alive and why trees aren't.

Christian:
It is interesting to see how the English Language has evolved to the place where the definitions of the words we use do not portray the truth we are trying to state.

Atheist:
Just because you don't understand the English language doesn't mean that everyone else doesn't either.

Christian:
The English language is not the *best* language when you want to express some ways of thinking.

Atheist:
The English language works just fine for communicating which objects are alive and what objects aren't.

Christian:
Other languages have their own nuances that sometimes give a completely more complete meaning to what they have to say.

Atheist:
Other languages work works just fine too for communicating which objects are alive and what objects aren't.

Christian:
I guess this is the human brain at work - trying to make a tree or dog or cat be something more than an animal that is eatable.

Atheist:
You want to eat trees and dogs and cats?

Christian:
We are probably already doing it and not knowing that it is what we are eating.

Atheist:
So besides all the other conspiracies you squawk about, now there's a conspiracy to feed us wood and pets. Do you think we are being fed people too?

Christian:
Some other cultures eat a lot of things that we, as Americans, will not touch. Like grasshopper legs in chocolate - um good.

Atheist:
That doesn't mean that you are being fed pets and trees by large corporations.

Tim Minchin's Storm

It's one his best. The creative energy coming from atheists who love to entertain is just awesome.

Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Satan by Deidzoeb of AvC

A lot of stories in recent decades give a postmodern twist to classic works of literature (or pop culture) by retelling the story from the perspective of a minor character. For example, "Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead" is a play that fills in some of the gaps of Hamlet from the perspective of those characters. "Grendel" by John Gardner tells the story of Beowulf from the monster's viewpoint. "The Wind Done Gone" tells the story of "Gone With the Wind" from the perspective of Scarlett's half-sister, a mulatto slave from that plantation. They're all kind of remixing or mashing up earlier stories in order to make new stories, or the same story from an interesting new POV.

I've only seen the movie of that first example, haven't read the others, but I assume they all rely on some of the exact same scenes from the original works, while inserting new scenes or new narration that wasn't in the original.

That's what came to mind when [name removed] mentioned a little about a "Gap Theory", including some assumptions that Satan did something important in between Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:2. It sounds like this important bit with Satan was left out of the Bible, or perhaps we are supposed to infer that it happened at that point even if it wasn't spelled out in Gen 1:1-2. [name removed] wrote: 'Now if you believe in a Gap Theory which states that there is a Gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 - (where Satan sinned) then Gen. 1:2 makes sense when the *was* is translated *became*.?'  [reference removed]

I razzed her about it and moved on.

Later I got to thinking about these mashup, remix stories that involve minor characters, and how the story of Satan has gradually developed that way from a combination of the Bible and these supplementary stories or traditions.

Plus there's the idea of the "retcon" from comic books. It means "retroactive continuity" and involves either changing or adding to a character's history. For example, let's say you're hired to write Batman, a character whose story spans 70 years of comics, movies, tv, novels, etc. But you don't like some of the baggage that comes along with this character, the fact that he's rich and has a butler. You want him to start off poor. You rationalize this change by saying "It was all a dream, everything you've read about Batman up to this point didn't really happen that way. Now we can tell the real story of impoverished young Bruce Wayne..." That would be a cheesy way to do it, but you'd be able to explain why his history is being changed.Or you could mess with time travel or alternate universes. Why did Batman kill the villain in issue # XIVLM? That seems a little out of character. (Or I don't want that to be part of his character.) So I change the continuity by saying it was really some other person disguised as Batman, it wasn't the real Batman who killed someone. Or you say that was a story that happened on alternate Earth #4, and we here on Earth #1 had a totally different experience.The changes could be large or small, or they could be rationalized well or poorly.

The point is that they're sometimes jarring, a way of rewriting a story or character that the earlier authors or contributors might not have intended.

Before we even consider [name removed] suggestion that Satan did something that was overlooked by Genesis, there are already aspects of the character of Satan that have been retconned or built up later by remixing and mashup. A lot of the history of Satan was really described in Paradise Lost, and not all of it comes from the Bible, or can be inferred from reading the Bible. It was a remix that used characters from the Bible and created a new story, or “filled in” a lot of details. Now people get them all mixed up and think of Satan in terms of Paradise Lost as much as they think of the statements from the Bible.

What I mean by “retconning” Satan is the interpretation that the Serpent in Genesis is a manifestation or avatar of Satan. It’s an interesting theory, but is there any clear scripture elsewhere in the Bible where they say “By the way, that Serpent character in Genesis is totally the same one referred to later as Satan”?

Maybe Satan is the Whore of Babylon too. Why not? Maybe Satan was the character Cain who killed his brother Abel, as long as we're taking every bad guy from the Bible and assuming they are manifestations of Satan. Maybe all the Jews or Romans who supposedly condemned Jesus were other manifestations or avatars of Satan. Maybe Satan is also "Leviathan" and "Rahab" the sea monsters.

How far do you want to take it? It seems to me that those interpretations would be assuming more than what the text says, but go ahead and have fun with it. Just don't pretend that it's a literal interpretation, or that any text of this length in any language is going to have a clear literal message which can't be interpreted or misinterpreted.

Check out the different stories that were eventually merged to become the story of Satan. Isaiah 14:12 talks about an insolent Babylonian king who metaphorically "fell from heaven" like a morning star. (Lucifer is Latin for morning star.) But they don't clearly say that Lucifer is Satan or vice versa. Stories of other angels that fell from heaven were eventually transferred to Satan. As long as you're willing to say that every bad guy character in the Bible was actually Satan, why not assume that this Babylonian king was Satan, and an obviously metaphorical "morning star" was Satan too? see The Lucifer Story

You could do this with almost any character. You could say Daniel and Job and David were not separate humans, they were actually reincarnations of the same character, or they were all human disguises worn by the archangel Michael (or whoever, insert your favorite hero here). Like any other bit of wild interpretation of the Bible, you don’t need good reasons to make this claim. You just need a strong feeling that it’s true, and you bully your way past anyone who disagrees. "Of course Daniel and Job were different aspects of the same character. Just read this part and that part and you should be able to tell how similar they are. If you aren’t seeing that they are meant to be the same character, then you’ve let the Devil get into you," or you aren’t praying on it hard enough, or you don’t have the sincerest pumpkin patch in the neighborhood.

OOOO! Another example is "The Last Temptation of Christ," another story that tries to fill in a gap by showing what Jesus perceived when he was being tempted on the cross, or whenever he was tempted. There are probably lots of stories like this filling in parts of the Bible for fun.

So, we should keep in mind that some of the common modern interpretations of the Bible are based on stories and ideas that came from outside of the Bible, or narrow retcons to explain how the Serpent is really Satan, a star briefly mentioned in Isaiah is really Satan, etc.

Even people who try to keep strict literal interpretations of the Bible don’t realize how much their traditions have been influenced by sources outside of the Bible.

To Question God by Steve of AvC

Theists all too often claim that atheists and freethinkers are driven by some innate and mindless hatred of religion, and revel in the collective denigration of peoples’ superstitious beliefs.  Still others believe that some traumatic psychological event, lurking in the basement of the atheist subconscious turned them away from a belief in religion.  And a few clutch at the idea that atheists reject god simply because they are afraid – of what I cannot imagine. Without question some atheists can be extremely confrontational and intolerant and I have been there myself.  However, I don't believe it is a question of hate or derision.  It is more an overwhelming sense of frustration from constantly being pummeled by the most inane and fatuous arguments that attempt to support a wholly untenable position.

Here we are at the close of the first decade of the 21st century and it is truly breathtaking – perhaps mind boggling would be a better word - the number of people who embrace a misogynistic, death-religion from over 2 millennia ago. Despite an overwhelming and ever-growing mountain of scientific research and evidence, millions still desperately cling to the fantasies concocted by desert nomads and embellished by religious zealots and power-hunger political despots.

If there is some semblance of fear, then it is fear of the escalating anti-scientific mindset and the raucous demand by all too many to embrace a theocracy that answers not to the law but to some imaginary deity.  The fear that reason will be continually kicked to the road side to accommodate the cacophonous hoards of religious camp followers who flaunt their supposed piety in the face of rational thought and believe it is better to burn a book than to actually read it.  And if that doesn't quash the voices of dissent then burn the author.  In part, there is the fear of an ever-diminishing sphere of rational discourse and logic in favor of close-minded religious cant and intolerance.

Science and reason have always illuminated the trail through ignorance and as such will always remain the mortal enemy of superstition, and hence religion.  The mystics profess knowledge they cannot possibly possess, and embolden their position and socio-political power base with endless doom-sayings of Armageddon, eternal damnation and hell fire.

For me, personally, that is what I find most distasteful of religion -the arrogant claim of divine revelation which can never be substantiated coupled with the threat of eternal destruction if even the most outlandish claim is remotely questioned.  Of course, it is always beneficial to the religious ring leaders if they can enlist the cooperation of the secular leadership. They can back up their spiritual demands of unquestioned obedience, and the incessant harangue of damnation and self- denigration with the imprimatur of the rack, the branding iron and the thumb screw.

As for a denial of god...well he has done that himself - so to speak. With each step away from superstitious ignorance the evidence for god dwindles.  Disease is not divine retribution; the universe despite its vastness is ultimately knowable.  The secrets of nature that once terrified our ancestors are taught in grade school textbooks. A high school student of today, having completed a basic First Aid or EMT course possess more legitimate medical knowledge than all the doctors combined of the great 15th century universities of Europe.  We can look up into the night sky with electronic eyes and glimpse the beginnings of the cosmos.  We peer into the shadows and find there is only the absence of light, not demons. It is the absolutist rejection of reason, science and the hard won gains of the unfettered human intellect that is most disturbing. 

Benjamin Franking once stated that ..."To see by faith is to shut the eyes of reason". 

And I could not agree more.

Steve in Virginia

Did Jesus Exist? vs Did God Exist? by Sigmund of AvC

In the beginning was the word, and the word was, like all words, a human invention, to label something that humans want to label. This gave shape to a concept that eventually led to an ontological fallacy (God-the-greatest-thing-I-can-imagine does indeed exist as a concept - that's the whole point - but that doesn't mean that God-the-greatest- thing-I-can-imagine also exists) ...

Whether a word represents 'the truth' is beside the point - labellng something tells us nothing about the thing itself (thank you, poststructuralism), but it may well tell us something about the labeer. In this case it tells us that the labeler was concerned with conceptualising a higher force who might provide some explanations and relieve some of the responsibility of his/her existence.

In the not-beginning, i.e. since the conceptualisation of 'God', many other words have been spun, whose provenance is almost constantly the subject of furious debate in this forum and many others. I have vented my spleen about these debates before (see my final word here), but have only recently crystallised precisely what it is that bugs me about them in its simplest form: Pondering questions such as 'did Jesus exist?' or 'how/why/when/where/by whom was the Bible written?' distract from a simple truth: God does not exist. Writings about 'him' are incidental to this fact, and discussions about religious sources are at best tangential to the more important questions, like 'God does not exist - why do people believe in him anyway?'

That is why I find that the 'historical approach' is of limited use when debating with theists; it is merely a curiosity that avoids the real issues. Of course it is interesting as an example of various aspects of religion, but the heated debating of 'facts' tends to miss even those points - such as the factors contributing to the development, codification and development of religious ideas and practices... I'm not suggesting that there is anything 'wrong' with debating these matters, but the venom with which they are addressed never ceases to amaze me. An understanding of the Bible is in no way necessary for an atheist - indeed one might say more generally: religion is tangential to atheism, and affects it in no way whatsoever. Or: religion may be a fascinating social/psychological phenomenon, but it has no bearing on the validity of the atheist position.

To return to 'the word' - surely questions such as 'what was it based on?' and 'who wrote it?' are insignificant compared to 'why does it exist at all?'

See also: Atheist Principles for further discussion, resources and links, etc.

Atheists Entertain!

I receive emails from time to time from other atheists who are engaging in different types of creative pursuits.

Many atheists, in my opinion, are intensely creative people and what I receive is usually pretty entertaining.

At the top of my list today (and my personal favorite) is a show hosted by one of my FB friends, Jake Farr Wharton with his co-host, Gregg Savage.

They describe the show as: "A podcast by atheists for everyone. A social commentary on social commentary. News, reviews, special guests, normal guests, boring guests, Psychic Bob, and Conversations With God."

It's serious, entertaining, and full of interesting stuff.

I've bookmarked the RSS feed using Live Bookmarks. Click The Imaginary Friends Show podcast.

Next is a Comedy Web TV series directed by Dan Kowalski  and can best be described as zany with an intelligent and topical underlay. Dan may or may not be an atheist but the topic is one that will probably appeal to many atheists.

 As per Dan, "It's a comedy about two slackers that start a religion in their apartment for selfish reasons."

 Click Marty and Doug's New Religion to check out the web site and view the series.

Each show is about 20 minutes long so it doesn't take too long to view the six episode series and just gets funnier as you get into it.

The following is a Rap Video by Dan Bull, in honor of the Pope's visit and very nicely done. :-D.

Pope Blames Atheism Yet Again

Ya gotta love the Pope's ability to lie so blatantly and shamelessly in his rather desperate attempt to rewrite history.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11332515

Apparently, according to the Pope, atheism is the source of all of the problems in the 20th century including German Fascism and the Holocaust.

"He said: "Even in our own lifetimes we can recall how Britain and her leaders stood against a Nazi tyranny that wished to eradicate God from society and denied our common humanity to many, especially the Jews, who were thought unfit to live.

"As we reflect on the sobering lessons of atheist extremism of the 20th century, let us never forget how the exclusion of God, religion and virtue from public life leads ultimately to a truncated vision of man and of society and thus a reductive vision of a person and his destiny.""

He has apparently and quite conveniently "forgotten" that Hitler was a Catholic, advocated his own form of Christianity, Positive Christianity, and the Catholic Church actively collaborated with him up to and including ensuring the Enabling Act of 1933 was passed which resulted in Hitler gaining absolute power and led to everything that occurred afterwards including the Holocaust.

It's times like this that I sincerely wonder if the ability to tell bald-faced lies is a component part of being a Christian. 

And isn't lying supposed to be a "Sin" according to the Christian belief system?

10 Commandments of God Catholic Version

8. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.

I guess it's okay to "bear false witness" against atheists in the Pope's version of the Ten Commandments.

Perhaps he doesn't consider us "neighbors"?

References to the actual facts:

Christianity and German Fascism: a Knol

No Beliefs dot Com Research On Hitler

List of Hitler quotes — in honor of the papal visit to the UK by Pharyngula

Article 16 of the Konkordat signed by the Catholic Church and Hitler in 1933.

" Article 16, required that Catholic bishops swear to honor the Nazi government, to make their subordinates honor it, and to HUNT FOR  and prevent action that might endanger it."

The Holocaust should never be forgotten but neither should the key role that Christianity played in both Nazi Germany and the events that led up to the Holocaust.

And may I take this opportunity to point out that it was the atheists (the German FreeThinkers movement) that were the very first targets of Hitlers fascism.

Moral Structure, Part 4 by Drafterman of AvC

Continues ...

Introduction, Part 1.

Defining The Rules, Part 2.

Summary/Conclusion, Part 3.

References

[1] http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-definition/

[2] Enumeration of complex actions with judgments assigned in accordance of the rules:

Intention	Forethought	Outcome	Misjudged?	Neglect?	Chance?	Judgment
Moral	Yes	Moral	No	No	No	Moral [R2]
Moral	Yes	Moral	No	No	Yes	Moral [R3]
Moral	Yes	Moral	No	Yes	No	Violation [L2]
Moral	Yes	Moral	No	Yes	Yes	Violation [L2]
Moral	Yes	Moral	Yes	No	No	Violation [L2]
Moral	Yes	Moral	Yes	No	Yes	Violation [L2]
Moral	Yes	Moral	Yes	Yes	No	Violation [L2]
Moral	Yes	Moral	Yes	Yes	Yes	Violation [L2]
Moral	Yes	Nonmoral	No	No	No	Violation [L1]
Moral	Yes	Nonmoral	No	No	Yes	Moral [R3]
Moral	Yes	Nonmoral	No	Yes	No	Violation [L2]
Moral	Yes	Nonmoral	No	Yes	Yes	Violation [L2]
Moral	Yes	Nonmoral	Yes	No	No	Violation [L2]
Moral	Yes	Nonmoral	Yes	No	Yes	Violation [L2]
Moral	Yes	Nonmoral	Yes	Yes	No	Violation [L2]
Moral	Yes	Nonmoral	Yes	Yes	Yes	Violation [L2]
Moral	Yes	Immoral	No	No	No	Violation [L1]
Moral	Yes	Immoral	No	No	Yes	Moral [R3]
Moral	Yes	Immoral	No	Yes	No	Violation [L2]
Moral	Yes	Immoral	No	Yes	Yes	Violation [L2]
Moral	Yes	Immoral	Yes	No	No	Violation [L2]
Moral	Yes	Immoral	Yes	No	Yes	Violation [L2]
Moral	Yes	Immoral	Yes	Yes	No	Violation [L2]
Moral	Yes	Immoral	Yes	Yes	Yes	Violation [L2]
Moral	No	Moral	No	No	No	Moral [R2]
Moral	No	Moral	No	No	Yes	Moral [R4]
Moral	No	Moral	No	Yes	No	Moral [R4]
Moral	No	Moral	No	Yes	Yes	Moral [R4]
Moral	No	Moral	Yes	No	No	Moral [R4]
Moral	No	Moral	Yes	No	Yes	Moral [R4]
Moral	No	Moral	Yes	Yes	No	Moral [R4]
Moral	No	Moral	Yes	Yes	Yes	Moral [R4]
Moral	No	Nonmoral	No	No	No	Violation [L1]
Moral	No	Nonmoral	No	No	Yes	Nonmoral [R4]
Moral	No	Nonmoral	No	Yes	No	Nonmoral [R4]
Moral	No	Nonmoral	No	Yes	Yes	Nonmoral [R4]
Moral	No	Nonmoral	Yes	No	No	Nonmoral [R4]
Moral	No	Nonmoral	Yes	No	Yes	Nonmoral [R4]
Moral	No	Nonmoral	Yes	Yes	No	Nonmoral [R4]
Moral	No	Nonmoral	Yes	Yes	Yes	Nonmoral [R4]
Moral	No	Immoral	No	No	No	Violation [L1]
Moral	No	Immoral	No	No	Yes	Immoral [R4]
Moral	No	Immoral	No	Yes	No	Immoral [R4]
Moral	No	Immoral	No	Yes	Yes	Immoral [R4]
Moral	No	Immoral	Yes	No	No	Immoral [R4]
Moral	No	Immoral	Yes	No	Yes	Immoral [R4]
Moral	No	Immoral	Yes	Yes	No	Immoral [R4]
Moral	No	Immoral	Yes	Yes	Yes	Immoral [R4]
Nonmoral	Yes	Moral	No	No	No	Violation [L1]
Nonmoral	Yes	Moral	No	No	Yes	Nonmoral [R3]
Nonmoral	Yes	Moral	No	Yes	No	Violation [L2]
Nonmoral	Yes	Moral	No	Yes	Yes	Violation [L2]
Nonmoral	Yes	Moral	Yes	No	No	Violation [L2]
Nonmoral	Yes	Moral	Yes	No	Yes	Violation [L2]
Nonmoral	Yes	Moral	Yes	Yes	No	Violation [L2]
Nonmoral	Yes	Moral	Yes	Yes	Yes	Violation [L2]
Nonmoral	Yes	Nonmoral	No	No	No	Nonmoral [R2]
Nonmoral	Yes	Nonmoral	No	No	Yes	Nonmoral [R3]
Nonmoral	Yes	Nonmoral	No	Yes	No	Violation [L2]
Nonmoral	Yes	Nonmoral	No	Yes	Yes	Violation [L2]
Nonmoral	Yes	Nonmoral	Yes	No	No	Violation [L2]
Nonmoral	Yes	Nonmoral	Yes	No	Yes	Violation [L2]
Nonmoral	Yes	Nonmoral	Yes	Yes	No	Violation [L2]
Nonmoral	Yes	Nonmoral	Yes	Yes	Yes	Violation [L2]
Nonmoral	Yes	Immoral	No	No	No	Violation [L1]
Nonmoral	Yes	Immoral	No	No	Yes	Nonmoral [R3]
Nonmoral	Yes	Immoral	No	Yes	No	Violation [L2]
Nonmoral	Yes	Immoral	No	Yes	Yes	Violation [L2]
Nonmoral	Yes	Immoral	Yes	No	No	Violation [L2]
Nonmoral	Yes	Immoral	Yes	No	Yes	Violation [L2]
Nonmoral	Yes	Immoral	Yes	Yes	No	Violation [L2]
Nonmoral	Yes	Immoral	Yes	Yes	Yes	Violation [L2]
Nonmoral	No	Moral	No	No	No	Violation [L1]
Nonmoral	No	Moral	No	No	Yes	Nonmoral [R4]
Nonmoral	No	Moral	No	Yes	No	Nonmoral [R4]
Nonmoral	No	Moral	No	Yes	Yes	Nonmoral [R4]
Nonmoral	No	Moral	Yes	No	No	Nonmoral [R4]
Nonmoral	No	Moral	Yes	No	Yes	Nonmoral [R4]
Nonmoral	No	Moral	Yes	Yes	No	Nonmoral [R4]
Nonmoral	No	Moral	Yes	Yes	Yes	Nonmoral [R4]
Nonmoral	No	Nonmoral	No	No	No	Nonmoral [R2]
Nonmoral	No	Nonmoral	No	No	Yes	Nonmoral [R4]
Nonmoral	No	Nonmoral	No	Yes	No	Nonmoral [R4]
Nonmoral	No	Nonmoral	No	Yes	Yes	Nonmoral [R4]
Nonmoral	No	Nonmoral	Yes	No	No	Nonmoral [R4]
Nonmoral	No	Nonmoral	Yes	No	Yes	Nonmoral [R4]
Nonmoral	No	Nonmoral	Yes	Yes	No	Nonmoral [R4]
Nonmoral	No	Nonmoral	Yes	Yes	Yes	Nonmoral [R4]
Nonmoral	No	Immoral	No	No	No	Violation [L1]
Nonmoral	No	Immoral	No	No	Yes	Immoral [R4]
Nonmoral	No	Immoral	No	Yes	No	Immoral [R4]
Nonmoral	No	Immoral	No	Yes	Yes	Immoral [R4]
Nonmoral	No	Immoral	Yes	No	No	Immoral [R4]
Nonmoral	No	Immoral	Yes	No	Yes	Immoral [R4]
Nonmoral	No	Immoral	Yes	Yes	No	Immoral [R4]
Nonmoral	No	Immoral	Yes	Yes	Yes	Immoral [R4]
Immoral	Yes	Moral	No	No	No	Violation [L1]
Immoral	Yes	Moral	No	No	Yes	Immoral [R1]
Immoral	Yes	Moral	No	Yes	No	Violation [L2]
Immoral	Yes	Moral	No	Yes	Yes	Violation [L2]
Immoral	Yes	Moral	Yes	No	No	Violation [L2]
Immoral	Yes	Moral	Yes	No	Yes	Violation [L2]
Immoral	Yes	Moral	Yes	Yes	No	Violation [L2]
Immoral	Yes	Moral	Yes	Yes	Yes	Violation [L2]
Immoral	Yes	Nonmoral	No	No	No	Violation [L1]
Immoral	Yes	Nonmoral	No	No	Yes	Immoral [R1]
Immoral	Yes	Nonmoral	No	Yes	No	Violation [L2]
Immoral	Yes	Nonmoral	No	Yes	Yes	Violation [L2]
Immoral	Yes	Nonmoral	Yes	No	No	Violation [L2]
Immoral	Yes	Nonmoral	Yes	No	Yes	Violation [L2]
Immoral	Yes	Nonmoral	Yes	Yes	No	Violation [L2]
Immoral	Yes	Nonmoral	Yes	Yes	Yes	Violation [L2]
Immoral	Yes	Immoral	No	No	No	Immoral [R1]
Immoral	Yes	Immoral	No	No	Yes	Immoral [R1]
Immoral	Yes	Immoral	No	Yes	No	Violation [L2]
Immoral	Yes	Immoral	No	Yes	Yes	Violation [L2]
Immoral	Yes	Immoral	Yes	No	No	Violation [L2]
Immoral	Yes	Immoral	Yes	No	Yes	Violation [L2]
Immoral	Yes	Immoral	Yes	Yes	No	Violation [L2]
Immoral	Yes	Immoral	Yes	Yes	Yes	Violation [L2]
Immoral	No	Moral	No	No	No	Immoral [R1]
Immoral	No	Moral	No	No	Yes	Immoral [R1]
Immoral	No	Moral	No	Yes	No	Immoral [R1]
Immoral	No	Moral	No	Yes	Yes	Immoral [R1]
Immoral	No	Moral	Yes	No	No	Immoral [R1]
Immoral	No	Moral	Yes	No	Yes	Immoral [R1]
Immoral	No	Moral	Yes	Yes	No	Immoral [R1]
Immoral	No	Moral	Yes	Yes	Yes	Immoral [R1]
Immoral	No	Nonmoral	No	No	No	Violation [L1]
Immoral	No	Nonmoral	No	No	Yes	Immoral [R1]
Immoral	No	Nonmoral	No	Yes	No	Immoral [R1]
Immoral	No	Nonmoral	No	Yes	Yes	Immoral [R1]
Immoral	No	Nonmoral	Yes	No	No	Immoral [R1]
Immoral	No	Nonmoral	Yes	No	Yes	Immoral [R1]
Immoral	No	Nonmoral	Yes	Yes	No	Immoral [R1]
Immoral	No	Nonmoral	Yes	Yes	Yes	Immoral [R1]
Immoral	No	Immoral	No	No	No	Violation [L1]
Immoral	No	Immoral	No	No	Yes	Immoral [R1]
Immoral	No	Immoral	No	Yes	No	Immoral [R1]
Immoral	No	Immoral	No	Yes	Yes	Immoral [R1]
Immoral	No	Immoral	Yes	No	No	Immoral [R1]
Immoral	No	Immoral	Yes	No	Yes	Immoral [R1]
Immoral	No	Immoral	Yes	Yes	No	Immoral [R1]
Immoral	No	Immoral	Yes	Yes	Yes	Immoral [R1]

Continues ...

Introduction, Part 1.

Defining The Rules, Part 2.

Summary/Conclusion, Part 3.