Real or No Real, that is the question!

Since last night I've read more posts on Atlantis than my brain wishes to absorb. And here’s my point!

The posts are split, on the Left; we have Byrd and his fellow historical researchers, who use their intensive studies of past times to great effect in their posts. The posts are well structured, thought out, quoting scientific answers, and in general this side knows about archaeology.

On the right, we have people who have a desire to prove the existence of Atlantis. For whatever reason, only they know, but them DO BELIEVE it was there. These posts are more relaxed in style, quoting references from books, prophecies, websites and the like. These posters lack the fundamental training that the left side has, to effectively debate theories about Atlantis. (Please no-one take this comment the wrong way).

Time and time again, The Left leaves the Right dazed and confused. Its in comparison with a lightweight boxer going in the ring against a heavy weight. No contest! Post after post, the Left still tries in vain, hoping to catch the Right side out, but they cannot. For the Right side has modern science and proof behind them and it is the strongest ally they could wish for!!

Or is it????????

At this moment in time, science is the all powerful force. If our scientist's say something is wrong, then it's wrong. No debate. Science is riding on the crest of a wave. The dogmas of having to keep in line with Church teachings are gone, and every scientist is pushing the boundaries further and further. If many of the popular science theories of this moment, where mentioned in public 200 years ago, the person putting them forward would have been laughed out of the science community. This isn't assumption, its fact. This still happens today even, with many people afraid to put forward a theory, in case their career is ended in an instant.

But now the Left has an ally and its the esoteric method of thinking, much more common during earlier periods such as The Renaissance or further back to the time of Pythagoras, and the highly evolved Mystery Schools, of which ALL modern science is based. These schools produced the likes of Plato, Socrates and later in time Mozart and Freud.

Now we have a problem. Isn't Pythagoras the one who solved the relationship between the edges of a triangle, with the statement, the square on the hypotenuse is equal to the sum of the squares on the other two sides. Isn't this the first step for all modern mathematics?? Pythagoras was the greatest mind in his time and his works later influenced Plato, Aristotle and Copernicus amongst others.

So the Left does have a powerful ally indeed. A man who can be credited with giving birth to modern scienentific equations way back in 50BC. Yet he was also an adept of his Mystery School and Secret Society. He understood the relationship between the World as he saw it and Maths... He also knew the Egyptians understood Maths to a much higher degree and went there to study for some time.

So what do we have, the Right beating the Left because they are superior in modern scientific thought. But the irony is, that the Left thinks in a very similar manner to the greatest minds that ever exisited. And these minds gave birth to modern science, although it roughly took us 1850 years to catch up to them!!!

So now we have a stalemate, science unable to disprove the Lefts method of thinking because it was this method that first introduced the early scientific thought.

Now the Left gains advantage by declaring that science never moved very far in 1900 years, only in the last 100 has it taken shape. The Right will desperately throw facts at the Left now, in an attempt to prove all that they believe in....Scientific Fact. Like I said, if science doesn't acknowledge something, its wrong. End of. This debate would rage forever, one side playing against another, none admitting defeat.

And now the reason why I posted this 'imaginary' debate....

Just because we don't have physical evidence that Atlantis was real, it doesn't mean that its a fable. What I mean is that by pushing the boundaries of human thinking and problem solving, science can yet again move forward, to exploring the hidden past of our Culture. Once Atlantis is proven to be real, it'll be like opening a can of worms. Scientists everywhere will be fighting each other to get there first. All the believer on the Left side will do is say 'I told you so!', before comprehending thier next task to contemplate.

I actually look forward to the day when Atlantis is acknowledged by the Scientific Community. All those who claimed it was a fable because it hadn't been 'discovered' yet, will have to rethink thier understanding of how Old The Human Race really is, and we are alot older than Scientific Fact proves at this moment in time. Some of you will laugh at this straight away and dismiss me a a lunatic, and others might just think 'What if....'

If you begin to think along the ways of the second part, then your half way there to advancing your science.

Originally posted by Pictnation
The posts are split, on the Left; we have Byrd and his fellow historical researchers, who use their intensive studies of past times to great effect in their posts. The posts are well structured, thought out, quoting scientific answers, and in general this side knows about archaeology.

We know about artifacts, and we can read or find translations of the ancient texts. Rather than accepting the interpretations of modern writers, we ask "What did they REALLY say?" and "What is the evidence?"

At this moment in time, science is the all powerful force. If our scientist's say something is wrong, then it's wrong. No debate.

I'm not sure you understand how science works. We are CONSTANTLY saying "wait a minute... I think you're wrong there!" How many posts have you seen here griping that scientists changed their interpretation on string theory, dark matter, various translations, and even what species a creature belongs to?

Science is all about the debate to find the greater truth. Everything is up for challenge. No point is unassailable.

This still happens today even, with many people afraid to put forward a theory, in case their career is ended in an instant.

This is the popular understanding of how scientists careers operate -- but the reality is far different. Careers don't end over peculiar theories... and I've had profs with some very strange theories that aren't accepted by their peers.

But now the Left has an ally and its the esoteric method of thinking, much more common during earlier periods such as The Renaissance or further back to the time of Pythagoras, and the highly evolved Mystery Schools, of which ALL modern science is based. These schools produced the likes of Plato, Socrates and later in time Mozart and Freud.

I think you're making a few assumptions, here. Socrates never attended Mystery Schools -- he was an athiest and rejected their thinking. Plato did, but it only changed his philosophical views.

Now we have a problem. Isn't Pythagoras the one who solved the relationship between the edges of a triangle, with the statement, the square on the hypotenuse is equal to the sum of the squares on the other two sides... Yet he was also an adept of his Mystery School and Secret Society. He understood the relationship between the World as he saw it and Maths...

But this hasn't actually translated to the Romantic View, because his whole philosophy was based in the study of logic and proof.

He also knew the Egyptians understood Maths to a much higher degree and went there to study for some time.

Actually, they didn't. It was the Greeks who had the better math.

So now we have a stalemate, science unable to disprove the Lefts method of thinking because it was this method that first introduced the early scientific thought.

Let's take another angle on this... let's say that Atlantis is accused of a horrific crime. The defense (that's us) maintains that Atlantis was never near the place and in fact did nothing at all. The prosecution says that Atlantis was at the scene of the crime and they KNOW Atlantis is guilty. The defense brings up the lack of fingerprints (lack of artifacts), lack of motive (lack of other writing), lack of evidence, and so forth.

The prosecution brings for their case several psychics who say Atlantis is guilty as sin and did it by crystal rays and that the murder was committed in several places.

If you look at it as a criminal case, you can easily see that the prosecution can launch a strong case if they send the psychics home and instead go find fingerprints and motives and so forth. However, they haven't found any and simply bring in more psychics.

...anyway... back to your point...

Now the Left gains advantage by declaring that science never moved very far in 1900 years, only in the last 100 has it taken shape.

They do this, yes. Whereupon they get hit on the head with a lot of information about how far science has advanced.

Just because we don't have physical evidence that Atlantis was real, it doesn't mean that its a fable.

Uhm... this is a very weak debate. What you're saying is:
- there is no proof that a certain thing exists
- things that don't exist are fables
- in spite of the two statements above, this unproved thing does exist.

What I mean is that by pushing the boundaries of human thinking and problem solving, science can yet again move forward, to exploring the hidden past of our Culture.

Actually, we use theory in just the way you're talking about to push the boundaries of human thinking -- but this is something you wouldn't know about until AFTER you have a Master's degree in a science. When you come up with an idea for a research thesis (Master's or PhD), you MUST pick a critical theory and use that to examine your research (theories would include modernism, postmodernism, marxism, etc. I wish I could buy you a cuppa tea and spend several hours explaining this to you... it's an insightful way of exploring thought and data.
en.wikipedia.org...

I actually look forward to the day when Atlantis is acknowledged by the Scientific Community. All those who claimed it was a fable because it hadn't been 'discovered' yet, will have to rethink thier understanding of how Old The Human Race really is, and we are alot older than Scientific Fact proves at this moment in time.

That's not the reason they think it's a fable. They think it's a fable because the only one mentioning it is Plato and because there aren't any artifacts and because (unlike Troy) there's not art or plays about it in the Greek culture or any other culture of that era.

And I think the Romantics' view of "how old the human race really is" probably is very shortsighted. Scientists believe the human race (hominids) is well over 4 million years old. And we believe that small townships have been in existance for over 9,000 years and villages have been in existence for even longer than that. We also believe that humans have lived in bands and tribes for over 4 million years, and that we have been using tools for about 2 million years.

If you begin to think along the ways of the second part, then your half way there to advancing your science.

The Romantic view hasn't actually advanced anything that has "panned out." The information they come up with is toned by what is believed in that time period (before the atomic bomb, the idea that "Atlantis was destroyed by an atomic war" never existed.) Many of these ideas directly contradict what is said by the original source, Plato.

Consider reading Lewis Carroll's "The Game of Logic" and then framing your arguments using logic (as they did classically) and you'll advance your arguments much farther.
fairy-tales.classic-literature.co.uk...

I see here the ancient slugging match between beleiver and science. I'm afraid that neither will solve the question to the others satisfaction because if there is hard evidence, it has been recycled long ago or left at the bottom of an ocean. But there is some record beyond Plato's dramatic morality play. I suggest that you check out the research by R Cedric Leonard at his web site.
Quest for Atlantis

Just because we don't have physical evidence that Atlantis was real, it doesn't mean that its a fable.

Your response, Byrd, was the following;

Uhm... this is a very weak debate. What you're saying is:
- there is no proof that a certain thing exists
- things that don't exist are fables
- in spite of the two statements above, this unproved thing does exist.

I think that is an inaccurate interpretation of his statement. He brings up a valid point; the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. Let us not forget that while aspects of the recent "New Age" phenomenon may have taken Atlantis to new heights, our oldest tale of the mythical island still predates Christ - or the Common Era, for the sake of political correctness. The search for Atlantis has brought to light other interesting "lost" civilizations around the world. When you get a chance, for instance, look up the book "Atlantis in Andalucia". It was published in 1929 or '30 by E M Whishaw, and documents Ms. Whishaw's archaeological discoveries in Andalucia, Spain, and her conclusion that Atlantis - or something - was located there. It's been some time since I picked up the book... so I'm hazy on the details.

Note to the "believers", this book does not present view of an advanced civilization -- or at least, not advanced as the word goes today. Also, no crystals or pyramids to be found

It is no news that ancient cities are constantly being brought to light - for instance, this bit of old news that you may already know about. I don't think it is too far-fetched to think that more "legendary cities" may be discovered in the future.

I too have gorged myself on the information available on Atlantis; still I am neither skeptic nor believer. I will leave it at that. Cheers!

I am going to through my two cents in here and say,

in my opinion,


I hold someones input, on any subject, very highly if they can explicitly explain something and be able to provide multiple sources to support what their saying.

One thing I have noticed about Byrd, is she not only provides links but can explain "in laymens terms" what the source is saying.

Originally posted by Direwolf
But there is some record beyond Plato's dramatic morality play. I suggest that you check out the research by R Cedric Leonard at his web site.
Quest for Atlantis

At this moment, the URL is 404. Could you hunt and find whatever it was that Leonard was talking about (the evidence) and show it to us?

Originally posted by Mr JackdawI think that is an inaccurate interpretation of his statement. He brings up a valid point; the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. Let us not forget that while aspects of the recent "New Age" phenomenon may have taken Atlantis to new heights, our oldest tale of the mythical island still predates Christ - or the Common Era, for the sake of political correctness.

True... and it's the sole source of the tale. Like J.K. Rowling is the sole source of the idea that the school, Hogwarts, exists.

The search for Atlantis has brought to light other interesting "lost" civilizations around the world. When you get a chance, for instance, look up the book "Atlantis in Andalucia". It was published in 1929 or '30 by E M Whishaw, and documents Ms. Whishaw's archaeological discoveries in Andalucia, Spain, and her conclusion that Atlantis - or something - was located there. It's been some time since I picked up the book... so I'm hazy on the details.

I misspelled the name the first time I went googling it. No "t" in her last name! Elena Maria Whishaw. There wasn't any EM Whitshaws who were archaeologists, but i see that EM Whishaw is indeed for real. Sadly, the bulk of the references are in Spanish, and I'll have to wait for this evening to get around to trying to translate some of them (dashing out the door soon).

I see that she was looking at Tartessos. For those of you with a taste for research, here's the "quick and dirty" from Wikipedia... bottom line is that she was influenced by local legends to misdate the ruins:
en.wikipedia.org...

Note to the "believers", this book does not present view of an advanced civilization -- or at least, not advanced as the word goes today. Also, no crystals or pyramids to be found

However, it would be consistant with what Plato said (the bronze-age Athenians kicked the Atlantean invading army out of the country.) Will have to wait until I have a bit more time for research -- but at this point, Tartassos wouldn't be a match, either, since it hasn't been underwater since the Jurassic era (judging by the geology of the area.) and Atlantis sank, leaving mudflats in its wake.

BUT... I'll go look into it later. Right now, I have a date with a dinosaur bone!

As promised, I looked into Whishaw's work.

She found a set of ruins, said "it's Atlantis!" and more thorough investigations showed that it wasn't Atlantis/cultural artifacts from Atlantis and didn't relate to Atlantis at all (wrong time period, even.)

So... erm... what am I missing? We have another "Atlantis discovery" based only on someone not fully reading Plato's description and a subsequent investigation that uncovered an early culture that had nothing to do with Atlantis.

(this kind of thing -- discovering early cultures -- goes on all the time in archaeology. They've learned in the past 50 years that it's not a good idea to make conclusions about a site before they do a thorough dig.)

I think that if there is no proof then it didn't exist, forget about the fact that it may very well have... That is what science is.

There's plenty of evidence that shows that when certain things don't fit into our little view of history, then we put it aside and lose it on purpose.

i am wondering if any of the folks here that constantly use the word "we" when they speak for science can put some names to "we". i have been trying to compile a list of real scholars and scientists who have categorically said that atlantis didn't exist but my list is very short [noone yet]. can you "we" people help me?

by the way, in any field of science at any one time there is a very small handful of people who can actually use the word "we". these people are chosen and not self appointed.

Originally posted by Parta
i am wondering if any of the folks here that constantly use the word "we" when they speak for science can put some names to "we". i have been trying to compile a list of real scholars and scientists who have categorically said that atlantis didn't exist but my list is very short [noone yet]. can you "we" people help me?

You know, you do have an excellent point -- not all scholars with heavy credentials in their field are disbelievers in Atlantis. Most of the ones writing about it are those who think it exists. The ones who DON'T think it exists are too busy looking for other things to spend time writing a book debunking the Atlantis myth. So when they write about the time period, the DON'T include any material about Atlantis.

If they thought there was any credibility to it, they would mention it (or write books about it, as they certainly did during the timeframe when "Santorini was Atlantis" was fashionable in popular thought.)

Where you'll find specific essays on "this guy writes nonsense" (and I don't have time for the search now) are in the books and letters that give the "evidence for Atlantis" material a negative review. But to give you a quick taste, such respondents include:
DB Vitaliano
M Hope
JML Walsh
Phyllis Young Forsyth
Walter L Friedrich
S Earle
C OLLIER

Most prominent one I can think of as I scurry off is Michael Shermer's book "Why People Believe Weird Things" and "Cult Archaeology and Creationism: Understanding Pseudoscientific Beliefs About the Past" by Harrold and Eve.

That will get you started on your search.

Originally posted by Mr JackdawHe brings up a valid point; the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.

Ah, but it is... And at the same time isnt. Because there are two ways to do theories:

- Assume something ISNT real and disprove it
- Assume something IS real and prove it

If you assume something isnt real, then the absence of evidence actually is evidence of absence. That's the only way you're ever gonna disprove anything.

For example, lets say that I make the claim that there was a civilization called Greekoegyptizantium that existed 4000BC, during a short period of time in an unspecified location in the middle east.

Would you say regardless of the fact that no one will never, ever find anything out in the field, what I just said remains evidence for it? That in a thousand years from now, when archeologists STILL havent found anything, it is still considered evidence?

[edit on 27-12-2008 by merka]

reply to post by Byrd


funny. who told them that looking for atlantis was silly? their fifth grade teacher miss crabtree? science is controlled from elementary schools... thats a popular lamentation

as for sherman and anyone like him... if you don't know where the seas were, you can't say an island is imaginary.

Originally posted by Parta
reply to post by Byrd

 

funny. who told them that looking for atlantis was silly? their fifth grade teacher miss crabtree? science is controlled from elementary schools... thats a popular lamentation

You do have a point -- that people who haven't actually talked to scientists lament that science is controlled from elementary schools.

But their "Atlantis doesn't exist" almost always comes from looking at the evidence (pro and con) for Atlantis. What most of them did (unthinkable to many researching this ) is dismiss Cayce and everyone else and go back to Plato and look through documents and records and poems and plays from the time BEFORE Plato. There are a number who felt that they had enough evidence from the manuscripts of Plato and have actually conducted archaeological investigations of areas that they felt could have been Atlantis.

as for sherman and anyone like him... if you don't know where the seas were, you can't say an island is imaginary.

I'll bet you will find that he has done a lot more research and reading than you think he has.

reply to post by Byrd


actually those lamentable words are from the lips of a famous scientist and quite recent. he is isreali so of course he was speaking on a biblical subject but the way you put things... its the same deal.

i wish you wouldn't bring up sitchin and cayce. i'm not able to discuss any of their viewpoints and its very frustrating because it seems that they are very important to how you think about the world. they are the only alternative you see to "trust me i know everything there is to know and we know nothing" - are they not? why can't i just give in and read that stuff. dang me.

yes i would be surprised if any such author knows their geography