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.
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
As opposed to thinking outside the pseudo-reality make-believe box 
