Did they find Atlantis today?

A few facts:

-No one ever believed the Earth to be flat. Climb a mountain and look at the horizon. Stand by the sea and look at the horizon, you can actually see the curve of the Earth. People didn't cross the Atlantic because it's a dangerous ocean and it's a long way to go. Imagine if America didn't exist and the Atlantic continued, then the Pacific. It would take at least six months to cross. Who would want to do that? This whole myth was pure invention by Irving Washington in his totally fictional biography of Christopher Columbus. (He also wrote totally fictitious biographies of the founding fathers of the US that are tought in school today as historic fact).

-The idea that the Earth is the center of the universe stems from the Catholic Church and existed only in limited areas. It was never a universal belief. In France, for example, they were decades ahead of Galileo and Copernicus. Actually, no ancient civilization ever believed the Earth to be the center of the universe. Earth was thought of as just another planet. Religion, as we understand it today, is a very modern concept. Romans did not believe in their gods and regular people weren't allowed to participate in the rituals anyway. Religions existed only for certain rites, but that's for another thread.

So before attacking someone, make sure you get your facts straight. None of this is hard to research, by the way.

As others have mentionned, Atlantis is a parable of a just society. A myth. And nobody else ever mentioned it before Plato, and that's a fact. Other ancient cities which may well have existed are mentioned throughout ancient civilizations, but not Atlantis. Unfortunately a lot of "researchers" associate these ancient cities with Atlantis when no such association actually exists.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by Hanslune

 

Not to split too many hairs.....but the Romans notion of history tends to be a "results may vary" issue. They are known to embellish, like all other cultures. However, in some ways they were more prone to embellisment. Esspecially when it comes to mythologizing. While they had many western traits, they still were firmly in the realm of the superstitious.

Agree to a point but on Troy they both had legends about it and had a physical location which agrees with what the majority believe today.

Originally posted by ajmusicmedia


-The idea that the Earth is the center of the universe stems from the Catholic Church and existed only in limited areas. It was never a universal belief. In France, for example, they were decades ahead of Galileo and Copernicus. Actually, no ancient civilization ever believed the Earth to be the center of the universe.

The centre of the universe concept predated the Christian church and was a common belief amongst tribes, cultures and civilizations.

Earth was thought of as just another planet.

You might want to start another thread on that too, the concept of 'planets' was quite alien (pun intend) to the ancient civilizations.

Originally posted by Hanslune

Originally posted by ajmusicmedia


-The idea that the Earth is the center of the universe stems from the Catholic Church and existed only in limited areas. It was never a universal belief. In France, for example, they were decades ahead of Galileo and Copernicus. Actually, no ancient civilization ever believed the Earth to be the center of the universe.

The centre of the universe concept predated the Christian church and was a common belief amongst tribes, cultures and civilizations.

Earth was thought of as just another planet.

You might want to start another thread on that too, the concept of 'planets' was quite alien (pun intend) to the ancient civilizations.

Classical Greeks wrote plays about people living on the moon. The Gauls believed Belanos and Toutatis had planted life on Earth then left for other planets to do the same. They weren't gods. The Gauls had no gods or religion.

Any time archaeologists can't explain something, they blame it on religion.

Originally posted by ajmusicmedia

-The idea that the Earth is the center of the universe stems from the Catholic Church and existed only in limited areas. It was never a universal belief. In France, for example, they were decades ahead of Galileo and Copernicus. Actually, no ancient civilization ever believed the Earth to be the center of the universe. Earth was thought of as just another planet. Religion, as we understand it today, is a very modern concept. Romans did not believe in their gods and regular people weren't allowed to participate in the rituals anyway. Religions existed only for certain rites, but that's for another thread.

While ignoring any issues with the remaining post....i would like to see if you can provide me any further reading supporting the above.. My understanding was that while "the dark ages" didn't exactly describe the mentality of the people of that time (despite our desires to think ourselves, in modern times, to be superior by proxy of our technology to our forebears), their cosmology was not quite so well refined.

But going even further back, to the birth of what we now call classical western civilization, the Greeks were fairly firmly well entrenched in an Earth centric viewpoint.

But I would enjoy illumination that provides information contrary to this. Especially that what Copernicus and Galileo "discovered" was somewhat widely known already within that same Western civilization that was aforementioned.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan

Originally posted by ajmusicmedia

-The idea that the Earth is the center of the universe stems from the Catholic Church and existed only in limited areas. It was never a universal belief. In France, for example, they were decades ahead of Galileo and Copernicus. Actually, no ancient civilization ever believed the Earth to be the center of the universe. Earth was thought of as just another planet. Religion, as we understand it today, is a very modern concept. Romans did not believe in their gods and regular people weren't allowed to participate in the rituals anyway. Religions existed only for certain rites, but that's for another thread.

While ignoring any issues with the remaining post....i would like to see if you can provide me any further reading supporting the above.. My understanding was that while "the dark ages" didn't exactly describe the mentality of the people of that time (despite our desires to think ourselves, in modern times, to be superior by proxy of our technology to our forebears), their cosmology was not quite so well refined.

But going even further back, to the birth of what we now call classical western civilization, the Greeks were fairly firmly well entrenched in an Earth centric viewpoint.

But I would enjoy illumination that provides information contrary to this. Especially that what Copernicus and Galileo "discovered" was somewhat widely known already within that same Western civilization that was aforementioned.

I'll try to find a specific website tomorrow (it somehow disapeared from my bookmarks...). It's from an Australian historian and tries to set the record straight. But it defies everything you think you know about history. For example, there are only about 7 actual documents from the "dark ages" and these consists of lists and inventories. More and more historians now believe this period never existed. It contained plenty of research along these lines.

But, briefly (I hope). Guttenberg invented the printing press. 2 days later, 2 more presses had been inventented. Fifteen total in 2 weeks. All of the inventors were indebted to the Catholic church (which was more of a political entity at the time, although religion was involved). To help pay their debt, the church had them print bibles. These bibles were distributed among the population of Europe (most people could read and write at the time: why invent a way to publish large quantities of books if most people can't read???). For the average person, a book was something owned by scientists and teachers and contained truth. So the bible had to be true and that's how religion spread.

Seeing this success, the church started buying every piece of written paper they could find, under the pretense of distributing history (these make up the Vatican archives). Then they started printing their own version of history were the world fell into these dark ages and only the church was able to keep knowledge. It doesn't even make sense when you understand the world at the time of the fall of Rome; Rome was not the only civilised and educated place in the world, far from it.

Others realised what was happening and started writing their own stories (Marco Polo was supposed to hold a high rank at the court of Kublai Khan, but Khan never mentions him anywhere).

This period was the first re-write of history. The second came in the 1800's when the modern "science" of history was invented. All early historians were writers, not one was an actual scientist. They rewrote and reinterpreted events and their books are now regarded as true history. The renaissance came from a book about the renaissance of art in Italy. It's about how Michaelangelo rediscovered a perspective technique that had been lost for a century and how Italian art prospered from there. It has nothing at all to do with science. Just the term Renaissance was kept and all else was adapted. Again, this all makes sense when you understand the true state of the world at the time of the fall of Rome.

As I said, I will look for the original site tomorrow.

Originally posted by ajmusicmedia

Originally posted by Hanslune

Originally posted by ajmusicmedia


-The idea that the Earth is the center of the universe stems from the Catholic Church and existed only in limited areas. It was never a universal belief. In France, for example, they were decades ahead of Galileo and Copernicus. Actually, no ancient civilization ever believed the Earth to be the center of the universe.

The centre of the universe concept predated the Christian church and was a common belief amongst tribes, cultures and civilizations.

Earth was thought of as just another planet.

You might want to start another thread on that too, the concept of 'planets' was quite alien (pun intend) to the ancient civilizations.

Classical Greeks wrote plays about people living on the moon. The Gauls believed Belanos and Toutatis had planted life on Earth then left for other planets to do the same. They weren't gods. The Gauls had no gods or religion.

Any time archaeologists can't explain something, they blame it on religion.

The Gauls would probably disagree with you, Oh what play was that?

Because religion was a powerful force that did motivate, as it does today. Most ancient construction except for fortifications had to do with religion.

Originally posted by ajmusicmedia
But, briefly (I hope). Guttenberg invented the printing press. 2 days later, 2 more presses had been inventented. Fifteen total in 2 weeks. All of the inventors were indebted to the Catholic church (which was more of a political entity at the time, although religion was involved). To help pay their debt, the church had them print bibles. These bibles were distributed among the population of Europe (most people could read and write at the time: why invent a way to publish large quantities of books if most people can't read???).

And there we see a real rewriting of history. If you do any genealogy, you'll quickly come across ancestors who couldn't sign their own name and who are listed in the rolls as "illiterate" (the first ones in my lineage crop up in the 1800's.) Education was for the upper classes (though it was illegal in some places to teach women to read) and for the middle classes -- who comprised less than half the population.

Nor were "large quantities" produced at the time Gutenberg's press was invented (he merely perfected other designs) -- his press simply made printing more efficient so that you could produce a book in 2/3 the time (source)

Seeing this success, the church started buying every piece of written paper they could find, under the pretense of distributing history (these make up the Vatican archives). Then they started printing their own version of history were the world fell into these dark ages and only the church was able to keep knowledge.

There are a number of problems with this, including the fact that the rest of the world was not in a Dark Age.

While I do think history has been "rewritten", I tend to believe that it's rewritten only for one country (as when the Soviets rewrote history for their schools.) The rest of the world doesn't blindly follow along, and scholars and historians (history is not a science, by the way) will use sources outside a country (and original sources) to construct what happened at any given time.

Originally posted by ajmusicmedia

Originally posted by Hanslune

Originally posted by ajmusicmedia


-The idea that the Earth is the center of the universe stems from the Catholic Church and existed only in limited areas. It was never a universal belief. In France, for example, they were decades ahead of Galileo and Copernicus. Actually, no ancient civilization ever believed the Earth to be the center of the universe.

The centre of the universe concept predated the Christian church and was a common belief amongst tribes, cultures and civilizations.

Earth was thought of as just another planet.

You might want to start another thread on that too, the concept of 'planets' was quite alien (pun intend) to the ancient civilizations.

Classical Greeks wrote plays about people living on the moon. The Gauls believed Belanos and Toutatis had planted life on Earth then left for other planets to do the same. They weren't gods. The Gauls had no gods or religion.

Any time archaeologists can't explain something, they blame it on religion.

Greeks writing plays about being on the moon proves nothing about them knowing about planets. Because the moon is no planet actually I read that in one of Platos books a fella there arguing the case that the world is the center and all travels around it.

I thought Toutatis was their god? I read when I got into Spartacus about the Gauls and he was compared to Mercury. Also aren't Gauls are Celtic tribes who separated? Not sure but I thought they had druids etc.

They also worshiped animals like boars

I don't know why people are so against the idea of past civilizations existing before Sumeria, possibly even advanced ones. Intelligent hominids have been around for close to 500,000 years and we only know 10,000 years worth of history. If you want to look at modern style hominids as a whole, 2.5 million years. Considering it took less than a thousand years to go from horseback and candle light , to spaceships, airplanes, electricity and global networks, I see no limitation or reason why this couldn't have happened previously. It seems to stem from the ego. People just don't want to believe that a more ancient people could be more advanced or equally advanced to ourselves. We want to be the pinnacle... but are we really? It makes you wonder if the legends are true.

Originally posted by Mad Simian
reply to post by Hopechest

 

That depends on if 'Atlantis' is the proper name for the so-called island to begin with. After all, in T&C Plato states that the details of the story were translated by the Sais priest into its Greek equivalent. If the story is true, you would likely find a more correct name for the island by figuring out the Egyptian equivalent of Atlas. By my research, Shu seems to be a good candidate although I'd like to get the opinion of our resident experts on that.

**edit**Actually, if the story is true, the ancient Egyptians might not have known the official name of the island either and their 'Shu's Island' name was just a stand-in. But, finding the Egyptian equivalent would be one step closer to an accurate name.

Just as no hint of such a lost culture appears in any Greek mythology, no "equivalent" appears anywhere in Egyptian mythological lore.

Besides, we're talking about a slab of granite here. Not some ruins or something.

Do we not all know that granite forms naturally?

Harte

Originally posted by HomerinNC
I'd love to find Atlantis and hopefully it does exist but as a person that looks at all the evidence I have to believe that at this point its probably unlikely it ever existed.

Its always wonderful to find new and ancient things though so that in and of itself is great news.

Originally posted by HomerinNCMight I remind you and the other Atlantis nay-sayers that proclaim Atlantis is a myth, story, fable, that a little less then 150 years ago, the city of Troy was considered a myth til Heinrich Schliemann found it
Troy

Fact is, we still don't know if that's really Troy, and Schlieman didn't find it anyway., Frank Calvert did.

Also, Greek mythology is rife with myths about Troy and Trojans. Soooo..., where's the Atlantis myths?

Harte

Originally posted by andy06shake
reply to post by olliemc84

 

"Remember back in medieval times when people were dead set on the fact that the earth was flat, because of a lack of significant evidence?"

I think the above is considered a modern day myth, promoted in the past by organised religion.

You're right, sort of.
It's a myth, but the Church had little if anything at all to do with it.
Note:

Historian Jeffrey Burton Russell says the flat earth error flourished most between 1870 and 1920, and had to do with the ideological setting created by struggles over evolution. Russell claims "with extraordinary [sic] few exceptions no educated person in the history of Western Civilization from the third century B.C. onward believed that the earth was flat", and credits histories by John William Draper, Andrew Dickson White, and Washington Irving for popularizing the flat-earth myth.

Harte

Originally posted by JayinAR
Someone please correct me if I am wrong, as this post may come off as chiding...

Anyhow, I do not see any possible way these archaeologists/geologists can KNOW when this land mass actually sank.
They are speculating.
The field of archaeology is the biggest joke of a scientific discipline on the planet.

So they speculate it sank ''millions of years ago'' and when people start to wonder if it could be the legendary Atlantis, you get nay sayer 'archaeologist' types riding in here on their high horses shouting down anyone who would dare make a suggestion and even the man who made the discovery itself.

Based on conjecture.
It would be funny if it didn't come across as complete self righteousness.

Uh...
These are Geologists.

Archaeology is a field of Anthropology. You know, studying humans? Not slabs of granite.

Originally posted by Lostmymarbles
What about Troy, Machu Picchu, Helike, Ur, Petra, Dwarka, Angkor, Pi-Ramesses, Memphis, Great Zimbabwe and the list goes on and on of ancient cities once thought to be mere myths and legends. Almost every year there are new discoveries of ancient sites that were only mentioned in myths and legends which means we should not dismiss what was written just because we weren't there to see it happen.

Plato was not the only person to mention Atlantis in history, he was just one of the few individuals who gave a detailed account of the city and it's layout which he got from older sources. Many ancient cultures have had stories that mention Atlantis.

There is no myth anywhere on Earth that actually resembles anything Plato said about Atlantis. Nobody but Plato wote anything at all about the story, excluding Plato's own critics, who wrote about what Plato said.

No ancient culture has any myth that mentions Atlantis. Not even the Greeks.

Every so-called "mythical" place you name had to be considered possibly mythical, until it was found. Is this something you have trouble seeing?

Regarding Troy, there was never any consensus among academia concerning whether or not the city itself ever existed. There certainly was, and still is, a consensus that the story of the Trojan War itself is mythical, though possibly not the conflict. IOW, do you believe the Gods were sitting on the walls of Troy, conversing and watching the battle?

Originally posted by Mr Mask
Now in your defense, it is often warned that Plato was a liar and used fabrication within his historic accounts and a reader must be wary.

Plato wrote no "historic accounts" that we have ever found.

Originally posted by Mr Mask
But lets not forget that The City of Troy was considered by all to be a fictional myth by scholars worldwide until the late 1860s when it was discovered.

See my previous posts above regarding Troy.

Originally posted by Mr MaskThere may be no "Atlantis" but almost every civilization of ancient times has a myth or historic record of a great civilization of "advanced minded" people, who lost their civilization to disaster.

Would you please name one or two that had such myths/records?

Harte

Originally posted by ajmusicmedia
The Gauls believed Belanos and Toutatis had planted life on Earth then left for other planets to do the same.

I'd say you would have a very difficult time backing that one up, since little is known about either figure, and what we do know comes from later association with the Greco-Roman pantheon.

You seem to believe that there are libraries of ancient Celt lore laying around somewhere, when they wrote almost nothing at all of their beliefs and myths.

Harte

Originally posted by Harte

Originally posted by Lostmymarbles
What about Troy, Machu Picchu, Helike, Ur, Petra, Dwarka, Angkor, Pi-Ramesses, Memphis, Great Zimbabwe and the list goes on and on of ancient cities once thought to be mere myths and legends. Almost every year there are new discoveries of ancient sites that were only mentioned in myths and legends which means we should not dismiss what was written just because we weren't there to see it happen.

Plato was not the only person to mention Atlantis in history, he was just one of the few individuals who gave a detailed account of the city and it's layout which he got from older sources. Many ancient cultures have had stories that mention Atlantis.

There is no myth anywhere on Earth that actually resembles anything Plato said about Atlantis. Nobody but Plato wote anything at all about the story, excluding Plato's own critics, who wrote about what Plato said.

No ancient culture has any myth that mentions Atlantis. Not even the Greeks.

Every so-called "mythical" place you name had to be considered possibly mythical, until it was found. Is this something you have trouble seeing?

Regarding Troy, there was never any consensus among academia concerning whether or not the city itself ever existed. There certainly was, and still is, a consensus that the story of the Trojan War itself is mythical, though possibly not the conflict. IOW, do you believe the Gods were sitting on the walls of Troy, conversing and watching the battle?


Harte

edit on 5/9/2013 by Harte because: Combining posts

Actually there has been other writings that spoke of Atlantis, some might not have given it the name "Atlantis" but spoke of an island in the Atlantic Ocean.

Here is a link which lists known writings of Atlantis that were written before, during and after Plato's lifetime.

Atlantis

More Atlantis mentioned in history

Originally posted by Lostmymarbles
Actually there has been other writings that spoke of Atlantis, some might not have given it the name "Atlantis" but spoke of an island in the Atlantic Ocean.

Here is a link which lists known writings of Atlantis that were written before, during and after Plato's lifetime.

Sorry, no.

Do you make it a habit to believe everything somebody writes on a web page?

Herodotus wrote nothing about any island civilization in the Atlantic, though he mentions "Atlantes," a people living, he says, in the shadow of Mount Atlas in the Atlas mountains, from which their name came.

The mountain and the range are both named for the Titan Atlas, and not Atlantis nor it's mortal king Atlas.

The only legitimate writings concerning Atlantis referenced at your linked site are the critics of Plato I mentioned. For example:

7. Plutarch wrote about the lost continent in his book Lives.

You can find this at the bottom of the page at this copy of the pertinant book of Plutarch's "Lives," which was a series of biographical essays, and not some story about Atlantis.

In fact, everything Plutarch says about the place can be seen to come directly from Plato.

BTW, you can find Herodotus' supposed "Atlantean" writings at that same website, in Herodotus' "Histories," but I forget which book. I suggest you read'em all, rather than gape at the blather on the site you linked.

Harte

Originally posted by Byrd

Originally posted by ajmusicmedia
But, briefly (I hope). Guttenberg invented the printing press. 2 days later, 2 more presses had been inventented. Fifteen total in 2 weeks. All of the inventors were indebted to the Catholic church (which was more of a political entity at the time, although religion was involved). To help pay their debt, the church had them print bibles. These bibles were distributed among the population of Europe (most people could read and write at the time: why invent a way to publish large quantities of books if most people can't read???).

And there we see a real rewriting of history. If you do any genealogy, you'll quickly come across ancestors who couldn't sign their own name and who are listed in the rolls as "illiterate" (the first ones in my lineage crop up in the 1800's.) Education was for the upper classes (though it was illegal in some places to teach women to read) and for the middle classes -- who comprised less than half the population.

Doesn't happen anywhere in my family and they were traders in North America. Also, if you're ancestors are North American or from any colony, there, indeed, most people were not educated as they had more important things to do.

Neither is this a sign of anything. I have a friend whose father writes his family name as Des Rosiers while his father's brother writes it Desrosiers. Both men are about 70 and have Masters degrees.

Nor were "large quantities" produced at the time Gutenberg's press was invented (he merely perfected other designs) -- his press simply made printing more efficient so that you could produce a book in 2/3 the time (source)

Again, that's if you believe our current history.

Seeing this success, the church started buying every piece of written paper they could find, under the pretense of distributing history (these make up the Vatican archives). Then they started printing their own version of history were the world fell into these dark ages and only the church was able to keep knowledge.

There are a number of problems with this, including the fact that the rest of the world was not in a Dark Age.

As I've been saying, there were no dark ages, the church made this up in their new history of the world.

While I do think history has been "rewritten", I tend to believe that it's rewritten only for one country (as when the Soviets rewrote history for their schools.) The rest of the world doesn't blindly follow along, and scholars and historians (history is not a science, by the way) will use sources outside a country (and original sources) to construct what happened at any given time.

Take a look at how history was rewritten in the 1800's. Everything was rewritten around a particular view of the writers wanted to give.

Originally posted by Harte

Originally posted by ajmusicmedia
The Gauls believed Belanos and Toutatis had planted life on Earth then left for other planets to do the same.

I'd say you would have a very difficult time backing that one up, since little is known about either figure, and what we do know comes from later association with the Greco-Roman pantheon.

You seem to believe that there are libraries of ancient Celt lore laying around somewhere, when they wrote almost nothing at all of their beliefs and myths.

Harte

Actually, French contains less than 120 words that come from the Gaul language and most of these are translated from Latin (which had adopted some Gaul words). Of course there are no libraries lying around. Yet they were the greatest metal workers of their time and had the most advanced agriculture of their time. Not quite illiterate idiots hiding in the woods. Quite a lot is known about them actually.

I thought Toutatis was their god? I read when I got into Spartacus about the Gauls and he was compared to Mercury. Also aren't Gauls are Celtic tribes who separated? Not sure but I thought they had druids etc.

They also worshiped animals like boars

edit on 9-5-2013 by Sparta because: (no reason given)

edit on 9-5-2013 by Sparta because: (no reason given)

edit on 9-5-2013 by Sparta because: (no reason given)

Originally they were probably settlers from Rome. People who left to try for a better life. This included citizens, slaves and freedmen. Eventually 2 waves of Celts joined them. In total they made up about 1/3 of Gauls. One wave went to the north (Northern France, Belgium) and one to the South (Northern Italy).

They didn't worship animals, but believed that all living things were created equally. Therefore the tree next to you was your brother, as was the bear behind you.

Someone mentioned Druids. The original reference to Druids comes from Julius Caesar. It is disputed whether they actually existed or not. If they did exist and if the Gauls had any, they were believed to have been trained in what is now the UK by the Celts living there. Again, the original stories come from Julius Caesar and may have been only a plot to invade England and to place severe laws on Gaul.