I am writing a book that deconstructs our societies way of solving problems. I want to contrast beliefs to knowledge. I also want to contrast the scientific method to ideology. I want to show that our society is imbalanced and leans towards beliefs and ideologies and why this is unhealthy. Also I want to show why Moralism is irrational and judgmental and doesn't solve everything. It is not that I do not know anything on these topics and don't know where to begin.The problem is quite the opposite. I have studied so much philosophy that I need to narrow down what is important to my arguments. There are just too many ways to make my point. Can anyone here help me focus on what should be my main arguments? Any good websites I should look at? Do any of you have arguments I can use?

CONTRAST BELIEFS TO KNOWLEDGE:

Belief does not require proof. The entire reason for making a religion dependent on faith is because there is no proof of the existence of a god/gods - miracles or much of anything else that they are saying is true. God used Illiterate sheepherders of one culture to spread his message to the whole world. A message that their very salvation depended upon. Nobody finds that just a little bizarre? There is an attempt to explain this by making it clear that god preferred the uneducated and simple minded throughout the bible, and that is exactly where they started spreading the gospel, in the rural areas to the pheasants. I'm sure that God is planning on sending more illiterate sheepherder to educate us all real soon. Ignorant people think that god hates wisdom. When in fact it was the Roman government that feared an educated population. In order to spread their idiotic religion they not only burned books that contradicted their religion but they also burned whole libraries.

CONTRAST THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD TO IDEOLOGY:

The scientific method and ideology have nothing in common. Dogma is what ideology is. It would have to be the ("Bible" science vs science) - I guess? So, if the bible is the word of the one who made science itself, then the bible must be an accurate book on science. If the Bible is erroneous in matters of science, then it could not be completely trustworthy on any other subject.

Many Americans get their "Bible" science from creationists who say that they don't deny the scientific method, but they are examining the "inconsistencies" in the evidence presented by the evolutionists. These creation scientists have never come up with any theory to replace evolution and they have not presented any theory that proves creationism. All they have done is try to falsify a theory that has been confirmed by DNA. The discovery of DNA is the result of evolution science not creation science; creationists have never produced or presented any theory that is useful to science. This is one example - there are many. If the creationists don't believe in evolution then they must believe that every species of every living thing on earth was created exactly the way they are today (each after it's own kind.) DNA proves that many plants and animals have evolved to produce other species. If science accepted the Biblical explanation of the origin of the species we would never have developed many valuable scientific theories.

SOCIETY IS UNBALANCED (IMBALANCED) AND LEANS TOWARDS BELIEFS AND IDEOLOGIES AND WHY THIS IS UNHEALTHY?

Most Christians think that the Ten Commandments were given to Moses on Mount Sanai. In fact, these principles were known by individuals long before Moses, within the Papyrus of Ani better known as the Egyptian Book of the Dead. The Ten Commandments originated in ancient Egypt in the "Book of the Dead". It is what a man must swear to do in order to enter the afterlife. Long before the biblical "Ten Commandments" with the exact same concepts and phrasing in the "Egyptian Book of the Dead" almost identical to the "Ten Commandments in the OT. Those Ten Commandments miraculously carved out of stone by God the Ten Commandments of the Bible were carved all the way through, and even the O's didn't fall out. They also could be read from either side. What a miracle! Wouldn't you think they would be backwards on the back? Of coarse Moses (conveniently) destroyed them so nobody can prove that they ever existed, but we can prove that they were copied from the Egyptian Book of The Dead. What are the moral teachings of the Bible? The Christian God is a vengeful, intolerant, angry and punishing God because that's what people are like then and now. Evangelists usually to leave out what the punishments for breaking the law were in those days since they killed people for minor infractions. The punishment didn't fit the crime. It didn't matter to them that their methods didn't work because they wanted revenge far more than they wanted justice. Today you would think that people would understand that the justice system has not properly addressed or solved the violence in our society. Most people come out of prison far more violent, than when they went in, including some of the "faith based" parolees who got out and murdered people. Which indicates their inability to rehabilitate anyone (some of these people are mentally ill) which is also not addressed.

MORALIST (MORALISM) IS IRRATIONAL AND JUDGMENTAL AND DOESN'T SOLVE EVERYTHING:

Evangelists promote the idea to the gullible public that people who do not believe in god are untrustworthy because it helps them multiply their membership. When in fact studies have shown that Christians are as dishonest as any group. I think it should be obvious from the fact that many of these evangelists have been caught lying and cheating. I guess their religion was not successful in scaring or bribing them into behaving themselves.

It's a little sad that there doesn't seem to be many people who want to behave honorably simply because of a sense of honor. Our country is filled with fanaticism and dishonest people who do not tell the truth and do not behave decently toward others. The bible never has and never will produce an ethical society because it is built on a pack of lies. OT Law: Deuteronomy 4:2 "You shall not add to the word that I speak to you, neither shall you take away from it: keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you." I can give you many examples beside the Egyptian Book of The Dead - we know that what is being passed off as the original authentic bible or word of god is expropriations of other civilizations gods, stories and forgeries.

Brian,

Knowledge is a subset of belief. Matt Dillahunty presented a lecture on Belief last year. You can find it here: http://www.atheist-community.org/lectures/speakers.php?id=53

The scientific method is what you employ when you care whether your beliefs are true, or likely true. Ideology is what allows you to justify beliefs and behaviors, even when the evidence doesn't support them.

Some books I recommend:

"True Enough" by Farhad Manjoo "Mistakes Were Made, But Not By Me" by Carol Tavris and Elliot Aronson

Neither delves into philosophical arguments, so they may give you the different perspective you're looking for. They're also fun to read!

Jen

Brian said, "Can anyone here help me focus on what should be my main arguments? Any good websites I should look at?"

If I were going to write a book I wouldn't necessarily first look at what other people have to say on the topic. I would first come up with my own ideas through scrutiny and deliberation, and then look at what others have written - if it's not that different it probably isn't going to be all that necessary to write a book. Like the adage "if we always agree one of us is not necessary."

I wrote my opinion that proof is a criterion that differentiates knowledge from belief. There are many different opinions on any subject - nobody has to agree with any of them unless they think they have proven their point. I read things all the time that I don't agree with. Some people think that there is a difference in belief and justified belief - but I don't. A belief may be justified and still be wrong. Something that is not a proven fact is not knowledge. I gave a brief outline and suggested a few changes in definitions - since I would expect that a person writing a book would want to investigate the subjects for themselves and come to their own conclusions.

I never think that anything is a fact until there is sufficient proof that I can examine for myself. Those who are in the "know" give us information all the time, but I don't necessarily believe that they do know. There are assertions by all kinds of people - that belief in god makes people more moral, happier etc., but some studies that were done came up with different findings. Danes and the Swedes are probably the most godless people on Earth- they don't believe in god, heaven or hell. They're nice to one another; their country has famously expansive welfare and health care services. They have a strong commitment to social equality and they murder and rape one another significantly less often than Americans do. This is not what we are lead to believe is true.

The term spiritual has also been debated. Some people say "it doesn't mean religious" but it does refer to anything outside or beyond the human level. I think they need to prove that "thing" exists because I think giving credit for human achievements to something spiritual diminishes the incredible things that humans can do and undermines their achievements. I have concluded that the very definition of knowledge is distinguishing between belief and facts.

Not all that long ago everyone believed that the earth was flat and was the center of the universe. Galileo was an Italian mathematician and physicist who improved the telescope. The telescope could only magnify objects three times. Galileo created a telescope that could magnify objects numerous times. Galileo was able to look at the moon, discovered the satellites of Jupiter, observe a supernova, verify the phases of Venus, and discover sunspots. Galileo's discoveries proved the Copernican system (the earth and other planets revolve around the sun.) Knowledge is also a perception of a truth or fact. Before the Copernican system, it was believed that the Universe was geocentric (the sun revolved around the earth.) If there is no evidence for something there should be no belief concerning it. Galileo took his telescope to Rome, but in 1616, Galileo's solar system theory was denounced and banned. Galileo had evidence and the Church had belief. Galileo's discoveries were perceived to jeopardize the Church and the Catholic faith, and he was cautioned by the Church not to pursue this (give it up because it's sacrilegious.) The Church taught that the word of God placed the earth in the middle of the universe, and therefore the sun rotated around the earth, and this is what people believed. If Galileo kept on with what he had discovered it would be hazardous to the Church because the Church could lose its credibility. A false belief is not considered to be knowledge - even the sincere ones.

A belief is only knowledge if the belief is true; a belief is not true until it is a proven fact, and then it is knowledge. I never use the term I believe to say that something is a fact - I say it is a fact that I know. Elimination of disturbing facts may be common in religion, but it is not the path to knowledge. A fact that nobody believes is not common knowledge, but there is someone who knows. Everyone knows that in Galileo's day new knowledge was difficult to disclose if it went against god or what everyone believed. What they don't admit is that it's not that different today.

Belief is consent to anything proposed by reason of the authority, and is accepted as fact, apart from personal knowledge or tangible evidence on (faith) or conviction. Galileo was tried by the Church, forced to recant all of his scientific findings, placed under house arrest and put into prison. I think he agreed to give up science for religion and they eventually let him out.

Galileo was never declared innocent of a crime, but the Catholic Church did reverse the 1616 proclamation that his theory should be banned. The pope simply said that Galileo was unjustly treated because the Church back then confused science and faith. If you have evidence you don't need belief.

Just an update on the status of my book. I have currently have 5 chapters and I have begun writing on 3 of them. I would like to thank you all for your input so far. I would like to point out that my book isn't specifically about religion or Christianity. Being an Atheist myself it is hard to avoid my bias which leads me to want to focus on debunking Christianity specifically. I do have an axe to grind but I decided that it wouldn't serve my purpose as a writer.

I think between Bertrand Russell and Richard Dawkins most the debunking has been done. I think the book titled "A History of the Warfare of Science With Theology..." covers anything they missed. Even Theologians John Shelby Spong and Elaine Pagels seem to be question Christianity to the point of being sympathetic to atheist thinking. So I just want to be clear about the intent of my book. The intent is simply to contrast philosophy with ideology and show how philosophy is more beneficial. I also want to show pursuing wisdom is more spiritual then upholding some sort of moralism. My main objective is to show that our society is pretty much run by moralist and ideologist and that it hasn't got us very far. Anyway I really wasn't looking for opinions on these subjects. Not in the sense of hoping that I could get people to write my book for me. I was simply trying to narrow down my focus to the keyu issues so that I wouldn't get bogged down in unnecessary research. I hope this post clarifies things.