Bible contradictions and historical inaccuracies visualized and sourced.

[AtheistCrusader]

http://bibviz.com/

This site works pretty slick.

[TreasonousBastard]

1. Visually interesting, but not much new in there...

most of us have known about these for years, and questioned all of them. Some call them mysteries. Most of us call them symbolism and allegories. Mistakes, even. We know the NT was written a hundred or so years after the fact and with many translations and copying errors.

If you want to have some real fun, ask a rabbi about the wilder stuff in the OT and let him spin your head around.

[AtheistCrusader]

2. This is the first time I have seen this data directly presented with that little 'context' button

that jumps straight into the text of your preferred translation.

I agree the concept is not new, but the delivery is very fast, very flexible, in a way I haven't seen before.

[TreasonousBastard]

3. Which brings me to ask...

why do you want such instant access to Judeo-Christian myth and fallacies? As a non-believer, I would think you wouldn't want to be bothered any more than I care about errors in Tao thought.

I well understand the occasional urge to throw ridiculous beliefs back at the more noxious believers, but by now you probably agree it's not worth the effort.

OK, OTOH maybe it's just a fun toy to play with.

[AtheistCrusader]

4. I often encounter the 'nu-huh' or 'rubber/glue' retorts when

I cross paths with religious doctrine in the abrahamic traditions. And any highlighting of some base truth they claim as a contradiction, etc, is usually met with 'you took that line out of context'.

I can think of many arguments I have had in the past where this tool would have been useful for dispelling all that nonsense. (Which is usually chaff thrown up to end the argument, rather than resolve something.)

[TreasonousBastard]

5. "rather than resolve something"...

God, chemtrails, Benghazi...

When faith of some sort is the operative measure, nothing is ever resolved until the parties come up with some internal understanding of their error.

[Warren Stupidity]

6. If bible thumpers weren't out trying to impose their lunacy on all of us, you might have a point.

When those hideous daoist fundamentalists start trying to impose their nonsense, I'll be right there pointing out why their crap stinks too.

[TreasonousBastard]

7. While there might be a slim chance you'll...

win over some part of an audience they might have, you'll mostly be wasting your breath.

Again I point out that reason and facts are absolutely no good in the face of blind faith. Faith in anything, not just religion.

[Warren Stupidity]

8. "reason and facts are absolutely no good in the face of blind faith"

careful, statements like that can cause an upset here.

So I agree for the most part that probably 90% of believers are pretty much in the "blind faith" category and thus unreachable. That leaves 10%. Should we just not try to reach them?

By the way, reason and facts have been demonstrated to be useless against almost all people as an instrument of persuasion. That is why the republican party moved, decades ago now, toward focusing on emotional arguments.

[TreasonousBastard]

9. What you mean "we" kemo sabe...

I'm largely in the believer camp, although quite skeptical of many things. And I'm not sure that I would assume so much belief is irrational. Some certainly is, but 90%? And why should "we" want to convert anyone? We may discuss actions that have an effect on the broader society, but convert someone from a belief that may indeed be beneficial?

I put that in the "mind your own business" category.

And why are only believers capable of blind faith? Are there no nonbelievers who are irrational about it?