I Wish To Offer An Opinion On Atlantis

Hey guys, I was wondering if any of you had read the Book Survivors of Atlantis: Their Impact on World Culture. I found it quite interesting and from reading it the author has suggested many things I had never even thought to entertain. with a power as large as Atlantis suposedly was there are bound to be colonies and the author suggests many and to me atleast they sound quite plausible. This would explain why so many different locations for Atlantis. I take the book with a grain of salt because imo the author writes a little too often in a "matter of fact" fashion. A good read overall. Much more interesting than the Lemuria book I bought at the same time

Originally posted by AmmonSeth

Originally posted by Harte
If you can't abide being shown how wrong you are, perhaps you should actually conduct some of this research you (and others here) claim to have done prior to making a ridiculous claim.

As it is, you're not gonna run off the truth by crying foul.
Harte

And what you say also applies to you,
When regarding a unknown subject, there is no 'truth' without fact, simply saying that a person is wrong because of no facts is not truthful either,

If a person has no facts, that person is engaging in what most people (apparently not yourself) consider to be "speculation."

If a person wants to speculate, and says they are speculating, I have no problem with that other than to point out where their speculation has overstepped the boundaries naturally laid down by observation.

Also, if a person believes a thing "on faith," I don't see any argument against that either, as long as the person acknowledges that they are basing their belief on faith and nothing else.

I believe if you look into my posts in this and other forums, you'll see where I've said this before.

Originally posted by AmmonSethSimply, proove that any theory or statement anyone says about atlantis is false, and then you can say you are right,

Ahem:

Originally posted by AmmonSethI search for Atlantis not actually looking for anything particular, but just what fits my small criteria, that way i am able to analyse without skepticism,

I'm asking what exactly it is that you are "analyzing."

How can one analyze without skepticism?

Originally posted by AmmonSethLike all great controversial scholars, Donnelly (in a way, like Cayce), has suffered many attempts to discredit his work and shame his name.

Oh.
Sorry, but I just realized I'm talking to someone that considers Donnelly a "scholar."

I'll try to use smaller words.

Originally posted by AmmonSeth
Until then you cannot say anyone else is 'wrong' or 'right' as there is no 'wrong' or 'right' until truth is established,

That is demonstrably false. A thing stated about an unknown can be wrong, and can be known to be wrong.

By your own statements, I assume you think that the former existence Atlantis is itself an unknown. You are probably aware that certain word sounds from the Aztecs have been used to propose the theory that the Aztec "Aztlan" is Atlantis, and the Aztecs' progenitors were Atlanteans.

However, the Aztecs spoke (speak) a language known as Nahuatl. It is this tongue that has all the "Atl" sounds in it. And Nahuatl is known to have originated in the American Southwest at least 500 years after Plato died.

Atlanteans? No way.

That's certainly something that is "wrong" about something you consider to be an unknown.

Originally posted by AmmonSeth

Originally posted by Harte
Lemuria was the name of a nonexistent and supposedly sunken land bridge from Madagascar toward India that was postulated to explain the presence of lemur fossils on the mainland when lemurs were known to only exist on Madagascar.

Another fave of the sceptic. Why should we believe this story - seems mighty convinient to me.

Why believe it? Because it's a fact:

The name Lemuria resulted from a Nineteenth Century controversy over Darwin's Origin of the Species. Defenders of Darwin had trouble explaining how certain species became distributed over large areas. Zoologists had a particularly difficult time explaining the distribution of the lemurs. The lemur is a small primitive form of primate found in Africa, Madagascar, India, and the East Indian archipelago. Some zoologists suggested a land mass in the Indian Ocean, between Madagascar and India, millions of years ago. An English zoologist, Phillip L. Schlater, proposed the name Lemuria (LEMURia) for this former land of the LEMURS in the Indian Ocean.

Earnst Heinrich Haeckel (1834-1919), a German naturalist and champion of Darwin, used Lemuria to explain the absence of fossil remains of early man: If man originated on a sunken continent in the Indian Ocean, all the fossils of the missing link are now under the sea. To quote Haeckel: "Schlater has given this continent the name of Lemuria, from the semi-apes which were characteristic of it."

Zoologists have now explained the distribution of lemurs without resorting to the use of a land bridge. And anthropologists have discovered many bones of ancient man in Africa. However in the nineteenth century, Haeckel's theories were widely read and respected. As a result, the name Lemuria was well known among educated people in Europe and America.

How did this silly idea get tangled up with pseudohistorians such as yourself? Read on:

Madame Elena Petrovna Blavatsky (born Helena Hahn 1831-1891), the founder of Theosophy, in her book The Secret Doctrine (1888), claimed to have learned of Lemuria in The Book of Dzyan, which she said was composed in Atlantis and shown to her by the Mahatmas. However, in her writings she did give Philip Schlater the honor of inventing the name, Lemuria.

Mme Blasvatsky located her Lemuria in the Indian Ocean about 150 million years ago. She may have obtained her ideas of a sunken land in the Indian Ocean from Sanskrit legends of the former continent of Rutas that sank beneath the sea. But the name Rutas sounds too spiritless and uninspiring to have held such a prominent place in cosmic history.

She described the Lemurians as the third root race to inhabit the earth. They were egg-laying beings with a third eye that gave them psychic powers and allowed them to function without a brain. Originally bisexual, their downfall came about after they discovered sex.

The English Theosophist W. Scott-Elliot, who said he received his knowledge from the Theosophical Masters by "astral clairvoyance", writes in The Story of Atlantis & The Lost Lemuria (1896), that the sexual exploits of the Lemurians so revolted the spiritual beings, the Lhas, that they refused to follow the cosmic plan of becoming the first to incarnate into the bodies of the Lemurians. Scott-Elliot located his Lemuria not only in the Indian Ocean: He described it as stretching from the east coast of Africa across the Indian AND the Pacific Oceans.

In this century, writers have increasingly placed Lemuria in the Pacific Ocean. Even psychics and modern prophets channel beings who were citizens of Lemuria. Today just about everyone who has heard of Lemuria assumes that the legends of Mu are identical with the English zoologist's land of the lemurs.

Source

Yep. Madame Blavatsky glommed onto Lemuria - taking the concept from an actual, real Natural Historian and claiming to have learned more about it from her "spirit guide," Koot Hoomi. She was safe to do so, after all, wasn't she? Lemuria's existence was accepted by science.

Problem is, turned out science was wrong, and there never was any Lemuria and Blavatsky was exposed (not for the first time) as a liar and an opportunist.

Hmm. I just realized that the above is just another example of a thing that is "wrong" about a lost continent concerning which the "truth" has yet to be established. Looks like though the truth hasn't been established concerning sunken lost continents, one can (as I said) know that statements made concerning the unknown are wrong.

Look, all I want is some evidence. You have some or you don't.
I'll go ahead and assume the latter, if you don't mind.

Of course, that would indicate that all you're high-minded talk on the subject amounts to self promotion. Not that I would disagree with that assessment but I would think you'd at least make some effort to hide the self-aggrandizing nature of your activities here at ATS.

Harte

Sorry harte, but several times you appear to have 'quoted' me on things i have never said,

so please do not use false information in your determination to argue

Originally posted by AmmonSeth
Sorry harte, but several times you appear to have 'quoted' me on things i have never said,

so please do not use false information in your determination to argue

Please point out where I have done so, as I do not believe that to be true.

All my quotes from you were made using the "quote" function. It's possible that I mistakenly quoted someone else, I suppose, but as I said, I don't think so.

Who is using "false information" here?

Harte

Sooo... Have anyone ever tried connect Atlantis with Carthage? Just something I thought of when watching Discovery. No its not on an island, 10,000 years ago or destroyed (at Platos time anyway), but rather we would assume that Plato was hiding the true meaning of the story in a parallel history. We know that Carthage was one of the largest cities around, could field the huge army, had vast influence in the Med in terms of naval and trade might and incidently lost all their wars with the Greeks.

So in short, the story of Atlantis may be about the overconfident Carthaginians trying to drive the Greeks from Sicily and their subsequent failure (the "sinking" of the "great Atlantis").

I'm sure some historian has considered it though. Just trying to make a little more fun conversation

On the plus side, its a nice compromise for pro-Atlantis peeps
I mean, Carthage really was an advanced civilization. More so than most.

And another thing, it fits the propaganda that is quite clear about Atlantis: Something that powerful and mighty that try to control the world will fall by the wrath of the Gods...

[edit on 24-1-2008 by merka]

Originally posted by merka
Sooo... Have anyone ever tried connect Atlantis with Carthage? Just something I thought of when watching Discovery. No its not on an island, 10,000 years ago or destroyed (at Platos time anyway), but rather we would assume that Plato was hiding the true meaning of the story in a parallel history. We know that Carthage was one of the largest cities around, could field the huge army, had vast influence in the Med in terms of naval and trade might and incidently lost all their wars with the Greeks.

So in short, the story of Atlantis may be about the overconfident Carthaginians trying to drive the Greeks from Sicily their subsequent failure (the "sinking" of the "great Atlantis").

I'm sure some historian has considered it though. Just trying to make a little more fun conversation

On the plus side, its a nice compromise for pro-Atlantis peeps

I mean, Carthage really was an advanced civilization. More so than most.

[edit on 24-1-2008 by merka]

Predates Plato by centuries, it was a bronze age civ., it was real....hmmm...

I like it. It's got a good beat and you can dance to it.

I give it a 7.

Harte

reply to post by Harte

No, it was an iron age civ (at the time of the Sicily war). The same show (Discovery) talked about them using calcium to purify it, something we didnt rediscover until the 18th century (or something like that).

I believe that if one actually compared them and equipment, they used more iron than the Greeks which still used bronze for example in their armor (hence them being more "advanced"). This is with no information to back it up at the time though, just speculation.

Sidenote: I assume that Plato would ignore the technology argument of the "ancient" people only using bronze. I think he looked at contemporary equipment, at most 100-150 years back (the first Sicily war was 120 years before he wrote about Atlantis I believe).

[edit on 24-1-2008 by merka]

Originally posted by merka
reply to post by Harte

 

No, it was an iron age civ (at the time of the Sicily war). The same show (Discovery) talked about them using calcium to purify it, something we didnt rediscover until the 18th century (or something like that).

I believe that if one actually compared them and equipment, they used more iron than the Greeks which still used bronze for example in their armor (hence them being more "advanced"). This is with no information to back it up at the time though, just speculation.

Sidenote: I assume that Plato would ignore the technology argument of the "ancient" people only using bronze. I think he looked at contemporary equipment, at most 100-150 years back (the first Sicily war was 120 years before he wrote about Atlantis I believe).

[edit on 24-1-2008 by merka]

Thanks for that Merka. Sorry about the Bronze Age thing.

Plato, I believe, merely described the Atlanteans and their Athenian foes in terms of what could be considered a Bronze Age civ. But Plato also said that the Atlanteans used orichalcum (which is probably brass) but he described it as different from the orichalcum of his day (no question that orichalcum was brass in Plato's day). So, iron can be made to fit into the description.

(I'm probably gonna wish I hadn't brought up this orichalcum thing. There are millions of silly claims about the stuff floating around the internet. I'm sure to attract the moonbats with that one.)

As I recall, this orichalcum was basically the only technological difference between Plato's fictional ancient Athenians and his fictional ancient Atlanteans. IOW, no mention of one being more technologically advanced than the other - except for the orichalcum thing. And hey, the Athenians did whip the Atlantean's butts, after all.

No, most of what Plato said about Atlantis that people today use to point out that it was a Bronze age civ. is just the descriptions he provided of the size of the army, number of chariots and such. It's not really about the bronze itself but the tech described. Or so I gather. I'm no expert on the bronze age myself. Just an expert (in my own mind!) on claims made pro and con concerning Atlantis' existence.

Harte

Well lets just say its hard to define it as either bronze or iron age since they used both at the time.

You got a good point about orichalcium though. Its not too hard to imagine this being the superior metal working of Carthage.

Hey, even those making ridiculus claims that "Atlantis" is a similar word everything word in history beginning with "Atl" (in Roman latin of course) will be happy! "Calcium iron": "Orichalcium"! Almost the same! Well not really

[edit on 25-1-2008 by merka]

Originally posted by Harte
Originally posted by AmmonSethLike all great controversial scholars, Donnelly (in a way, like Cayce), has suffered many attempts to discredit his work and shame his name.

When the hell did i ever say that?

Originally posted by AmmonSeth
Lemuria was the name of a nonexistent and supposedly sunken land bridge from Madagascar toward India that was postulated to explain the presence of lemur fossils on the mainland when lemurs were known to only exist on Madagascar.

And when did i say that aswell?

Well I dont know where he got the first part, but the second is what he said not you (the quote is a double quote, him quoting what you quoted that he said).

Edit: the first part appear to be a misquote by Harte, yes. srsen said it on page 2.

[edit on 25-1-2008 by merka]

you may also read from real scholars that orichalcium is copper gold and brass [zinc copper] is the mysterious corinthian bronze which was the tulips of the ancient world.

you may also find that the bronze age has been pushed back to 5000bc with the discovery of hundreds of bronze beads in a tomb in hungary announced last april.


[edit on 25-1-2008 by Parta]

Originally posted by merka
Well I dont know where he got the first part, but the second is what he said not you (the quote is a double quote, him quoting what you quoted that he said).

Edit: the first part appear to be a misquote by Harte, yes. srsen said it on page 2.

[edit on 25-1-2008 by merka]

Thanks, Merka.

Ammonseth,

It was srsen that said the other. Sorry, but I was carrying your header on my clipboard and hadn't realized that I had pasted in srsen's words.

The other, as Merka said, was a quote of my statement concerning Lemuria, followed by your statement asking why you should believe it. I included my own words there for clarity, should someone read the post and not know what it was that you didn't want to believe.

Here is what you said in response to my attempt to tell you that no such place as Lemuria ever existed:

Another fave of the sceptic. Why should we believe this story - seems mighty convinient to me.

I responded in the post in question with an extremely good reason for you to believe it.

Harte

I haven't seen anyone on these threads thinking 'outside the box:.

Why must catastrophic floods come from mountains. Earth isn't/wasn't the only body in the universe containing water.

Consider a cosmic event. Another large body breaking up and dumping not only water, but mud and rocks upon the Earth - just like all those old folk tales tell us. And how about the magnetic/gravity effect disrupting the land, triggering volcanos and earthquakes, raising mountains and sinking continents?

Try this for starters. I have posted other links on the tread that is supposed to be a composit on the subject.ATLANTIS

While you are thinking outside the box, ask yourself who these people were and what happened to them?
WHO WERE THEY?

reply to post by merka


Now that's what I call thinking outside the real box As opposed to thinking outside the pseudo-reality make-believe box

i hardly know much about atlantis but i do know that plato said it was ruined over nite and would like to know how that fits in with a theory of freezing

Originally posted by mamasita
i hardly know much about atlantis but i do know that plato said it was ruined over nite and would like to know how that fits in with a theory of freezing

its all mythos, apart from those who were there,
plato told an account of what may of happened,
never take ancient storys/fables etc. literally