Now, I know there's a lot of religious people on this site, but this seems to be one of the nicer forums so forgive me. But, this thread is for those that aren't religious because they "don't want to follow a blind belief."

With all due respect I do not follow a blind belief. Christianity is the most enlightening philosophy I have ever considered. Nilhism now there is a blind belief.

but I dont think your talking about beliefs but faith, that is to say your not talking about the christian ideal, the philosophy but rather the ressurection, the miracles, the faith in a supreeme being.

Well that too is not "blind FAITH" - you see although science can not prove that God does exist (it would not be a matter of faith), neither can it prove that God does NOT exist.

So what we believe in is something beyond the realms of science, now it would be blind faith if for example we did not examine the evidence for it and the evidence against it. And just blindly accepted it....But all true christians have examined it.... it is what is known as being "born again"

And while there is plenty of evidence for Gods existance, there is none against it.

the evidence for it can not be proven to be fact - that is true.

But there is no evidence that even suggests God does not exist.

Therefore as a rational person looking to make a logical conclusion based on the evidence I have, I must logically believe in God. That is not blind faith but reasoned faith.

However if someone were to give me some evidence (not argument) of God not existing then I would have to consider this new evidence, but as yet there is no evidence that suggests their is no God but plenty that does..... therefore I can only come to the logical conclusion that God exists.

We often have faith in people, we consider the person, the evidence for them to be trust worthy and the evidences against before we lend them money for example - we can not prove that they will not rip us off, neither can we prove they will... but we can make a reasoned decision based on the evidences we have examined before putting our faith in the person and lending them the money or refusing to put faith in them and not lending them the money.

A Catholic is someone who

1. believes in the Catholic philosophy, the catholic Ideal
2. Has examined the evidence for and the none against God and has placed his/her trust/faith in the existance God.


A muslim is the same apart from he believes in the islamic philosophy, the islamic ideal, same with a Jew, a protestant, a orthodox Christian etc


It is certainly not blind belief or blind faith.

As for your world is flat malarky granted you do not know for yourself it is 100% fact but all you need do is examine the evidence, and then ask yourself if you have faith those who are presenting this evidence.

I certianly believe the world is round, I have faith in the scientists that tell me it is so....because the natural world is their field, that is not blind faith it is reasoned faith. However when science leaves the field of the natural world and go into the field of philosophy that is where i distrust them.

First, let me just ask this: are you a member of the Flat Earth Society and/or going to be using their proofs here?

Or is this supposed to be more philosophical?

its already been proved that the earth isnt flat. why do we need to do it again?

well said

thank you, Wikipedia. ^_^

The idea of a flat Earth is that the inhabited surface of Earth is flat, rather than a curved spherical Earth. This idea was shown to be incorrect many centuries ago, and the term "flat earther" is sometimes used colloquially to describe those who cling to discredited ideas.

Philosophers who considered the issue had to reconcile the apparent spherical nature of the globe (which can easily be deduced from a study of the horizon) with the fact that objects do not fall off it. The possible answer that all things are attracted to the centre of the earth results in a geocentric universe), which has problems describing siderial motions. It was to address these difficult issues that some theories proposed either a flat or hemispherical earth, and complex motions for heavenly bodies, such as Ptolemy's epicycles. Later, Newton would formulate a theory of Universal Gravitation (which was later elaborated upon by Einstein with his geometric theory of gravitation), but the earlier proposals were not unsophisticated.

It is also important to consider in what sense the earth is considered flat. Since discussion of the Universe brings theology into consideration, medieval flat earth statements may often be referring to theoretical relationships between God and Man rather than physical reality. Such considerations explain the violent disagreements between individual philosophers and state/religious establishment, over what would nowadays be considered a minor issue.

You misinterrpreted. Notice the quotations!

No, but I know a lot of there explanations. I know it's been proven to be round but I doubt anyone here (except Eiri) can successfully prove that it isn't flat. Go ahead and try to prove it isn't flat. Be enlightened.

provide the financing to fly/sail around this spherical world of ours and i will be more than happy to oblige. ^_^

You can circumfrigate the world on a Flat Earth perfectly.
Here's a the UN logo. This could be how a flat earth works:
http://www.phnompenh.gov.kh/projects/PUPRs /images/UN-logo.GIF
(how do put in images?)
People use a compass to know which direction they're going in. If the north pole is in the center of a circle, you'll be moving around inside the circle thinking you're going straight.
NEXT!

so you honestly think.. with alllll the people who have circumnavigated this vast hunk of alluvium that have NEVER fallen off the face of the Earth (or come anywhere near it from what i know..) that the world is flat?

*sigh*

this is entertaining, to say the least.

Yeah, it is kind of fun to debate the shape of the Earth on the internet. I posted a link to an image showing how it would work but here's another one: http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e305/fly ing_leaf/test1.jpg
Sorry, but I don't know how to post the image directly yet.

save ur file in imagecave.com then use the EZcode and paste it here.

anyway..

explain to me how after hundreds of years of exploration, that no one has sailed over the edge.

Well the image process seems like it will take a long time to load so just click the link to see the image. In the image, Antartica is stretched along the edge of the circle. Just imagine that the Antartica portion extends farther. Everyone who has claimed to go across Antartica has probably (if the earth were flat) skimmed one side and ended up on the some other portion of the said Antartica. Let's call it the Ice Wall. And most people who try to go across Antartica abort prematurely anyway. So, I'd say certain people who have gone missing in Antartica have either frozen to death or fallen off the edge.

*giggles*

u crack me up.

Do you have another question?

well..
can you explain why the pictures from NASA disprove your flat theory?

Pictures can be easily made by CGI. For example: http://www.celestiamotherlode.net/catalog/ images/screenshots/fic_starwars/Coruscant_ _guilpan.jpg
NASA receives 12.6 billion dollars per year since its inception in 1950-something (I forget). NASA must've discovered the Earth was flat and realized money could be easily made if they pretended to explore space (sustained space flight is impossible on a Flat Earth). There only has to be a few people at the head of the conspiracy and they can use their salary to keep the conspiracy active and keep the rest of the profit to themselves. Another idea would be they pretended to go to the moon to the pressure of the space race and realized money could be easily made if they continued their act. This is HIGHLY unlikely but not impossible.

Do you want mathematical proof or photographic, lol?

Photographic doesn't count so I'll go with mathematical.