Bumper sticker. . .(shudder)

what is a life without any faith? To me that leaves a big gap in a persons life.
Speaking personally, life without faith is great! My husband and I are both atheists and we live very happy and full lives, no gaps. We fill our lives with books and movies, with good conversation, with travel and entertainment, with good friends whose company we enjoy. This doesn't leave any gaps that need to be filled with imaginary friends.

But thanks for asking!
 
Speaking personally, life without faith is great! My husband and I are both atheists and we live very happy and full lives, no gaps. We fill our lives with books and movies, with good conversation, with travel and entertainment, with good friends whose company we enjoy. This doesn't leave any gaps that need to be filled with imaginary friends.

But thanks for asking!
freaky, uninhibited, 'religously induced guilt'-free sex can also enter that equation as well. Let us never forget that.:D
 
What proof was there in 1492?
First and formost was the observation of ships coming in from the horizon.
when a sailing vessel comes in to harbor and is way off at sea, You see the mast first. Then the ship starts to "rise" form the ocean. This is impossible visually from a flat earth prespective. People who understood this observation were left with the only one available conclusion that they were on a curved surface.
 
What proof was there in 1492?
Lot's. I'll give you three that when taken together put the matter to rest for most long before Columbus. From The Straight Dope:

(1) Departing boats gradually sink below the horizon, as do buildings on the shore from the viewpoint of the sailors.

(2) "The sphericity of the earth is proved by the evidence of ... lunar eclipses," Aristotle says. "For whereas in the monthly phases of the moon the segments are of all sorts--straight, gibbous [convex], crescent--in eclipses the dividing line is always rounded.

(3) The constellations shift relative to the horizon as you move north and south around the globe, something that could only happen if you were standing on a sphere. (You may have to draw a few diagrams to convince yourself of this.)
 
That's a claim.

Prove it, Scientist...........
science
1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.

2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.

3. any of the branches of natural or physical science.

4. systematized knowledge in general.

5. knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.

6. a particular branch of knowledge.

7. skill, esp. reflecting a precise application of facts or principles; proficiency.

Yep, science is not language.

That is also your problem with the word "faith" you treat it as if it has the word "religious" in front of it.

Paul

:) :) :)
 
Originally Posted by Huntster
What proof was there in 1492?

Lot's. I'll give you three that when taken together put the matter to rest for most long before Columbus. From The Straight Dope:

(1) Departing boats gradually sink below the horizon, as do buildings on the shore from the viewpoint of the sailors.

(2) "The sphericity of the earth is proved by the evidence of ... lunar eclipses," Aristotle says. "For whereas in the monthly phases of the moon the segments are of all sorts--straight, gibbous [convex], crescent--in eclipses the dividing line is always rounded.

(3) The constellations shift relative to the horizon as you move north and south around the globe, something that could only happen if you were standing on a sphere. (You may have to draw a few diagrams to convince yourself of this.)

That's all great evidence. Compelling for most at the time.

Was it "proof"?

Incontrovertible?
 
...Yep, science is not language.

Of course it isn't!

Science isn't language, but language is a science.

You can't linguistically make science a language any more than you can make 2 + 2 = 15.

That is also your problem with the word "faith" you treat it as if it has the word "religious" in front of it.

Unbelievable!

That is exactly what you do.

I have never stated that faith can only be used in the context of religion.

In fact, I'm in the middle of a game/derail being played by RandFan who is trying to deny the faith that Columbus had with regard to his exploration.
 
That's all great evidence. Compelling for most at the time.

Was it "proof"?
Yes, if you accept the standard definitions of evidence and proof then there is no question. Of course it is.

Incontrovertible?
I'm not sure how one would controvert the evidence. Each premise individually can be controverted but taken all together I don't think it is possible. Do you have an argument that would controvert all 3 premises at the same time?
 
Not that Columbus had anything to do with proving that the Earth was a sphere. That was figured out around 500 BC. In 1492 pretty much every educated person knew that the Earth was spherical. Especially cartographers like Columbus. The sailors in Columbus' fleet also knew this fact because it was how they determined their latitude. Columbus' crews weren't afraid of falling off the edge of the Earth, they were afraid of dying of thirst.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by Huntster
That's all great evidence. Compelling for most at the time.

Was it "proof"?

Yes, if you accept the standard definitions of evidence and proof then there is no question. Of course it is.

It is now. It was not then:

From your wonderful dictionary link (finally, you see the light!):

Proof:

noun
1. evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth.
2. anything serving as such evidence: What proof do you have?
3. the act of testing or making trial of anything; test; trial: to put a thing to the proof.
4. the establishment of the truth of anything; demonstration.
5. Law. (in judicial proceedings) evidence having probative weight.
6. the effect of evidence in convincing the mind.
7. an arithmetical operation serving to check the correctness of a calculation.
8. Mathematics, Logic. a sequence of steps, statements, or demonstrations that leads to a valid conclusion.
9. a test to determine the quality, durability, etc., of materials used in manufacture.
10. Distilling. a. the arbitrary standard strength, as of an alcoholic liquor.
b. strength with reference to this standard: “100 proof” signifies a proof spirit, usually 50% alcohol.

11. Photography. a trial print from a negative.
12. Printing. a. a trial impression, as of composed type, taken to correct errors and make alterations.
b. one of a number of early and superior impressions taken before the printing of the ordinary issue: to pull a proof.

13. (in printmaking) an impression taken from a plate or the like to show the quality or condition of work during the process of execution; a print pulled for examination while working on a plate, block, stone, etc.
14. Numismatics. one of a limited number of coins of a new issue struck from polished dies on a blank having a polished or matte surface.
15. the state of having been tested and approved.
16. proved strength, as of armor.
17. Scots Law. the trial of a case by a judge alone, without a jury.

The spherical nature of the Earth was not proven until Ferdinand Magellen sailed completely around the world. Then it was proven. Tested, and found to be true without question.

Incontrovertible.

Quote:
Incontrovertible?

I'm not sure how one would controvert the evidence.

Before Magellen, it was theory.

It was based upon good, valid evidence, but it was not proven.

Each premise individually can be controverted but taken all together I don't think it is possible.

What?

Are you saying that any evidence equals proof?

Do you have an argument that would controvert all 3 premises at the same time?

How about the fact that none were tested multiple times with consistent, incontrovertible results?
 
It certainly is now. It became incontrovertible after Magellen.

Then?

Nope. Just compelling evidence.
I'm sorry huntster, all historical "evidence" argues against this.

But again, this is off point.

IF he sailed on FAITH, he didn't need evidence.
He wasn't testing the theory of round earth, he used his "FAITH" to result in action. He was lucky that truth argreed with his FAITH then.

FAITH doesn't encourage testing. it encourages blind action. This may be considered an experiment, but it wouldn't be a very scientific one.
 
But why does everyone need to be truth driven? It seems to me that many people have no desire for truth and will create any fiction they wish.

I see no problem with self delusion provided they don't try to physically force their delusions on others.

I agree. But if someone says "I know the truth" but they can offer no supporting evidence other than their will to believe then it is perfectly acceptable to challenge their claim.
 
Not that Columbus had anything to do with proving that the Earth was a sphere. That was figured out around 500 BC. In 1492 pretty much every educated person knew that the Earth was spherical. Especially cartographers like Columbus. The sailors in Columbus' fleet also knew this fact because it was how they determined their latitude. Columbus' crews weren't afraid of falling off the edge of the Earth, they were afraid of dying of thirst.

That is all correct. Sailors were the first to "know" that the world was round, in the same way that whalers "knew" that giant squids existed.

Science "knew" later.

Investment bankers might have "known" much later.

Royalty?
 
That is all correct. Sailors were the first to "know" that the world was round, in the same way that whalers "knew" that giant squids existed.
But not the tall stories that they told abut the giant squid that sunk ships.

Paul

:) :) :)
 

Back
Top Bottom