Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Where do you think Atlantis is or was?

page: 3
3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 04:29 PM
link   
My theory...

At one time Africa (Morocco) and Europe (Spain) were connected. I propose that the most likely place is the bed of the Mediterranean. The link between Africa and Europe that were holding the Atlantic Ocean back was either naturally or purposefully eroded and was written into the Bible as the great flood as the ensuing Ocean filled what is now the Med Sea. The builders of Atlantis had already destroyed it, the ensuing flood took away the rubble (if any) and covered it up.

[edit on 20/2/07 by Prote]




posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 05:17 PM
link   
the bible flood was global
you can't pick and choose which facts to use in your pet theory with religious texts any more than you can when choosing which details to use from Platos dialogues
thats cheating



posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 05:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Marduk
the bible flood was global

Oh yeah. Sorry, I forgot that the bible is all true.



posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 06:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Marduk
the bible flood was global
you can't pick and choose which facts to use in your pet theory with religious texts any more than you can when choosing which details to use from Platos dialogues
thats cheating


Come now, that isn't fair. The Biblical flood was just recounted as something that inundated all the land the author of it knew about. To that author, "the world" was what they knew. Later accretions such as reference to mountains and trees are the normal development of story in oral tradition. They occur to intensify the meaning. It is the same as the angler's tale of the one that got away ("it was this big!"). It doesn't mean the angler didn't catch a fish though.

I know you disagree with the thrust of the post you replied to, Marduk, but don't bluster at it and scoff at it: rather examine it and interact with it. Doing that gives you credibility. Attacking the post because of its poster does not.

Cheers.



posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 06:16 PM
link   
As for this thread, well, much as the flood story is fascinating, it's rather OT I fear.

Personally I have a lot more inclination to believe there was a culture-destroying flood at some time (we saw one a few years ago on Boxing Day), than there was an Atlantis. Or to put it another way, there may have been city-states before Plato, and in compariatively distant places, and the knowledge of them may have got to Egypt (which is Plato's self-claimed source). But I strongly doubt they had any very unique and interesting characteristics, and probably none of those eventually got into Platos' work (including its ancient alleged time of existence). They were just "exotic" to foreigners. Myth-making starts.

The fundamental difference between the flood myth and the Atlantis myth is that the flood myth is preserved by culture(s) it purported to have happened to.

The Atlantis myth comes from a culture that had nothing to do with Atlantis. Much in the way that European explorers came back from Madagascar telling of the carnivorous trees, given human sacrifices. They didn't come back from Tuscany with similar stories though.

Stories about one's own culture (eg. the flood myth), while subject to exaggeration, are more likely to retain a little more truth. Their purpose is anthropological: they bind a society, give it shared experience and values. People so bound together in a common culture form better teams, work together and prosper. There is less need to actually lie about things(indeed, it only becomes possible to lie as the events recounted disappear before historical memory), although one will expect "spin" to occur to make one's culture seem great.

A story about a culture completely different from one's own (eg. the Atlantis myth) is more likely to focus on how it is different from one's own (for the same reasons as fixing one's own culture as the "norm"). It will feature lies, inventions, and all manner of untruths. It's purpose is not to delineate your own culture, it is to alienate others' cultures. And so also serve to bind you into your own culture.

Anyway, that academic anthropology aside, I am more happy to see the flood myth forming over eons in the first group, and an Atlantis in the second group. And thus I do not give much credence to the Atlantis myth.

Cheers.



posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 06:20 PM
link   
mmmm,
Perhaps we should ask Marduk to tell us more about Atlandis:
Here is what his science tell us:

Marduk:www.belowtopsecret.com...


and much later a greek philosopher immortalised it but spelt it wrong
its name was Catlantis
(Catlandis not Atlandis)

Edit
-----------------------------------------
I must add that this guy (Mardu) has a portion of real humour in him





[edit on 20-2-2007 by Dragonlike]



posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 07:13 PM
link   

posted by D6094
I know you disagree with the thrust of the post you replied to, Marduk, but don't bluster at it and scoff at it: rather examine it and interact with it. Doing that gives you credibility. Attacking the post because of its poster does not.

well someone has sense of humour failure today then

You really think Prote was being serious ?
maybe I'm losing it in that case
lets ask him
Prote you made that post up off the top of your head right
thats why there were no links and why what you suggested is known to be geologically incorrect
yes/no ?



posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 07:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Marduk
Prote you made that post up off the top of your head right


Prote is geologically correct:




posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 04:53 AM
link   
actually that gif shows the break up of gondwanaland to the present which took 500 million years
Prote was talking about something which happened (according to plato) 11,500 years ago
so no cigar for you Dragonlike



posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 05:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Prote
My theory...

At one time Africa (Morocco) and Europe (Spain) were connected. I propose that the most likely place is the bed of the Mediterranean. The link between Africa and Europe that were holding the Atlantic Ocean back was either naturally or purposefully eroded and was written into the Bible as the great flood as the ensuing Ocean filled what is now the Med Sea. The builders of Atlantis had already destroyed it, the ensuing flood took away the rubble (if any) and covered it up.



Yes, back in the Miocene, there was a Gibraltar Dam and the Mediterranean was a dry, hot, salty desert. Hardly the sort of place I'd care to live. Not that any humans existed in those days of course


en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 05:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Marduk
actually that gif shows the break up of gondwanaland to the present which took 500 million years
Prote was talking about something which happened (according to plato) 11,500 years ago
so no cigar for you Dragonlike


First, i dunno smock, so i am pissed if you give me cigar or not
Second,does Plato mention the chronology of his story that tells?
No, mere saying that's it's a time long ago
about a story that even he was not born, so how he knows it?
Aliens told him so? (another perspective as a adjudicator would accept-as a theory)
I don't want to speak further and make Marduk cry his eyes down 'couse i am sure he will....
My point is that, perhaps, Plato indeed speaks about a continent thrived the age of thousands or millions years ago his time...

*All i need to do is to travel back in time and ask him* (jesting
)



posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 05:52 AM
link   


My point is that, perhaps, Plato indeed speaks about a continent thrived the age of thousands or millions years ago his time...

so you haven't read Critias or Timaeus then


from Timaeus by Plato
Solon marvelled at his words, and earnestly requested the priests to inform him exactly and in order about these former citizens. You are welcome to hear about them, Solon, said the priest, both for your own sake and for that of your city, and above all, for the sake of the goddess who is the common patron and parent and educator of both our cities. She founded your city a thousand years before ours, receiving from the Earth and Hephaestus the seed of your race, and afterwards she founded ours, of which the constitution is recorded in our sacred registers to be eight thousand years old. As touching your citizens of nine thousand years ago

Solon lived 638 BC–558 BCE
so the destruction of Atlantis is approximately 9600BCE according to Timaeus


from Critias by Plato
Let me begin by observing first of all, that nine thousand was the sum of years which had elapsed since the war which was said to have taken place between those who dwelt outside the Pillars of Heracles and all who dwelt within them

so Critias states 9000 years before this discussion which is between Critias and Socrates
Socrates lived between 470–399 BCE
so this date is approx 9400BCE according to Critias

most Atlantis officianados therefore accept the average date of 9500bce for the destruction itself. thats 11,500 years ago
which proves only one thing buddy
you haven't got a clue what you're talking about
have you


maybe in future before making a complete ass of yourself you might actually look at the facts before posting ignorant statements
but knowing you
I doubt it



posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 06:24 AM
link   
Whatever...
This chronology is not what Plato sais but what Solon has told him...
...And Solon is what the priest has told him...
...and priest is what someone else have told him...
...and so on...
Do you know what is happening here?
Do you know why the vocal speaking is not so trustworthy than the writing speech? Becouse in vocal speech facts can change... Only what has writed down last for ever...



posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 07:39 AM
link   
what a load of crap
so in that case
the priest could have made it all up for a laugh and Atlantis doesn't exist
it never existed
and your attempt at redaction is a huge waste of everybodies time



posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 11:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Marduk
what a load of crap
so in that case
the priest could have made it all up for a laugh and Atlantis doesn't exist
it never existed
and your attempt at redaction is a huge waste of everybodies time


That's all your imagination, Marduk!!!
What are you trying to prove that i spread disinformation?
Read carefully!!!
Vocal speech was the way to tell information from generation to generation... manuscripts later used...
For example, Odyssey was an Epic poem singing by rhapsodists and While today's version is a printed text, the original poem was composed in a tradition of oral epic...

What is Oral Epic poetry?
Oral poetry is a form of poetry that is transmitted orally and memorized or improvised rather than written down. It exists primarily within oral cultures, though some forms of it can survive after a culture has made the transition to literacy.

Their civilization of old was characterized by their ability to memorize a huge capasity of information (Odyssey: 12,110 hexameter lines of the original Greek consist if i am not far off) rather today's years... Today we use our logic to compose and connect the information what the ancients' do scarcely...

edit
------------------------
I never said the priest made up things...
This is your way to respond?
Replying in out of the question posts?
I doubt your ability of speaking 7 languages!!!
If this is you norrowmindness to conclude i stay out of this

What was the misunderstanding?
passing information from generation to generation ORALLY there is always a percentage of mistake! {prove me here wrong pig-headed}
the priest learnt about Atlandis by his priest-mentor (perhaps), orally
Solon made about Atlandis by the priest, orally
and Plato learns about Atlandis by Solon, orally

PS: You are no more than a liar tell me that i haven't read Timeos & Kritias
I tried to get along with you but you are no more that a ''sh/t b@st@rdo$''




[edit on 21-2-2007 by Dragonlike]



posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 11:45 AM
link   
what you are doing is questioning something that is written
therefore you no longer have any position to claim that some of what was written was true and other parts were not
its either all true or it isn't relevant
this is quite normal though for Pseudo Atlantis researchers
twisting the facts to fit their own agenda is not good science
its pseudoscience
in my country we don't call it pseudoscience as a large proportion of the public aren't familiar with this term
the term "complete bollox" is far more widely known
thats what you are currently trying to claim



posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 11:51 AM
link   

what you are doing is questioning something that is written
therefore you no longer have any position to claim that some of what was written was true and other parts were not

I am questioning something written by oral speach

PS: You cannot call me pseudoscientist scince i am at the beginning of my studies. Wait 6 years to take PHD and i will speak about that thing. Then, i wonna know what are you going to tell



posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 12:03 PM
link   
ok so get back to me in six years and stop making statement that you are unqualified to speak on until then
you will only regret it later
where are you from Dragonlike ?
I am interested and that is a sincere question ?



posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 12:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Marduk
ok so get back to me in six years and stop making statement that you are unqualified to speak on until then
you will only regret it later


Not being a scientist yet doesn't mean i don't wonna learn or i never open an Papyrus/Larous/Britanica to read or a wiki to study the world. It doesn't mean i haven't worries, i haven't questions...and it doesn't mean i haven't flaws


where are you from Dragonlike ?
I am interested and that is a sincere question ?


Why such an interest?



posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 12:29 PM
link   
Oh My! What happened in here?


I was going to answer the question but I don't care much for the calibre of conversation.





new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join