What are you talking about? There was tons of evidence to support the claim that the earth was flat! For example, upon visual inspection, most people concluded that it looked flat. Maybe at sea it gave the appearance of being rounded on the horizon, but if you sailed out there it was always flat wherever you went.
Any fool could look at a ball and realized that you could only balance stuff on the very top of a sphere; if you put it on the edges then it slid off. Things didn't seem to be sliding off the earth, ergo the earth was flat and not spherical.
Unless you were lucky enough to have knowledge of astronomical observations, long distance triangulation measurements or had somehow managed to devise the theory of gravity, it made much more sense in light of ones experience and observations to assume that the earth was flat and orbited by the sun and stars.
Why do we always assume that ancient people had no evidence to support their beliefs?

Poor judgement

Logic is toolbox for decision making.

For example:

You know that you like beer better than wine, and that you like wine better than orange juice.

Someone offers you a drink. You can choose between beer and orange juice.

The logical decision would be to choose beer ... of course.

Your preferences do not depend on logic. But the decision making process that is based on your preferences does. At least if you want to make rational decisions. But whether you apply logic or not. The decision itself is solely determined by your individual preferences. Logic is just a tool to make rational decisions according to those preferences and the other conditions. It's not a way to the ultimate truth for everybody.

The subject of this thread is logic and judgement.

Not logic and personal preferences.

When logic and proportion are falling sloppy dead...

Personal preferences are indeed, examples of judgement.

Logic is not supported by fact. The idea of a non-flat world was supported by observation, only. It could then be deducted that the earth was not flat (but not deducted that it was spherical).

Since the notion that judgment having an affect on logic should effectively have been put to sleep by now, we can hijack this thread in good conscience

I don't think we always assume that ancient people had no evidence to support any observation. If you're firm on using the word 'belief' then we can certainly interchange it with observation UNLESS you're referring to religious belief. If that is the case then I'll have to say that neither ancient people nor people of today have evidence to support their belief.

Notice that Noahath specifically said "religious belief" before he said that there "was no evidence to support this claim". And indeed, while there was plenty of evidence to support the idea of a flat earth, there was no evidence whatsoever to support a Biblical or any other religious claim of a flat earth.

Oh dearme ...

I'd be more inclined to use the term "assertions" if you feel "beliefs" has too many religious connotations.
Though I think your final distinction there is arbitrary. The existence of evidence to support an assertion isn't affected by where that assertion is written down, be it in a dictionary, a personal letter, or a bible. It's not like observations supporting an assertion vanished when the assertion was written into a religious text.

Hijack it with your nonsense then.

Have fun :-)

Not my fault. That we aren't interested in discussion is obvious.

Oh dear me

Well, I responded to your response to Noahath's specific and quite literal mention of "religious belief". It has nothing to do with my feelings.

PS. I did, however, 'feel' that you didn't quite catch Noahath's specific reference and therefore suggested to freely interchange belief and observation if it was meant outside the religious sphere. And yes, 'assertion' can be used as well but, again, only if we're talking outside the realm of religion.

Sure, the existence of evidence isn't affected by where, how or when it was written down. The existence of evidence is solely affected by availability to our senses or extensions thereof.

'Philosophists' will most probably tell you that what seems of X appearance to you has, in reality, X appearance. Period. After all, no one can really say that the sky is blue with any proper certainty. To another person, the sky could appear as yellow. Besides, we've probably all learned that the sky is, in fact, colorless and that what we see is a refraction caused by phenomena beyond the sky itself. Heck, no one really knows the sky exists now that we're at it.

However, the very first premise of presenting evidence is that something can be evident to the senses. Besides documentation of the atmosphere itself (hence the existence of something we can sense and call a sky), documentation can be provided that under certain conditions (location, altitude, time of day, humidity, temperature), the refraction of sunlight that hits the earth through the atmosphere consists of X set of wavelenghts. It doesn't matter if I or anyone else perceive it as blue, yellow or green. It is that set of wavelengths under those conditions no matter what and it's all available to our senses so that anyone can go check it out under the very same conditions. That's evidence.

Divinity is by definition transcendent to our senses. Doesn't matter if it's our senses or an extension of our senses. Divinity transcends it. Therefore there can be no evidence of divinity. And it doesn't matter where, how or when anything is written down about anything that transcends our senses. There can be no evidence of it.

Now to the point. Earthly matters, such as the appearance of the earth, of the city of Jericho, of sandals or of a man called John the Baptist do not transcend our senses. The evidence of such things is only a matter of how much you are able to dig up - in written records or more physical records such as actual artifacts - and how much you can deduct your way to a conclusion (heck, even induction works, depending on what you're trying to get at). But, and this is in fact the entire point, you cannot use any kind of source that relies on something that transcends our senses. In other words, "observations supporting an assertion" does indeed vanish as soon as the assertion is hung up on the existence of divinity.

So, when someone tells you that the flat earth is a matter of divine scripture - thus dependent on something for which there can be no evidence - then there is no such evidence available. There can be an infinite amount of evidence that the earth is flat but divinity isn't part of it.

Thank you.

Meh, I still think the distinction is arbitrary, though I suspect it goes back to the fact that I find your definition of "divinity" as "transcendent to our senses" rather needlessly narrow.
The definition of "divinity" hinges upon the nature of whatever one believes God (or the gods) to be like. If I happen to subscribe to a religion in which my sofa is referred to as God and worshiped for the tender ease and relaxation it provides, its amusing tea stains, and its arrival as a free gift from my parents, then my sofa is "divine" and the marks it leaves in my carpet are "evidence of divinity".

Sure. Divinity is supposed to transcend much more than our senses (such as the very existence of everything, including ourselves). I only said that it transcends our senses - feel free to add "as well".

Fair enough

Well, in this case it would be your fault if there was a need to discuss the obvious