Why mainstream Science doesn't accept Atlantis theories

  • Thread starter Thread starter TorontoReign
  • Start date Start date
EDITS/

I am just saying that we should not just shrug of "any" kind of myth as fruitless. What I see many times is that opinion plays a very important role in the interpretation of informations. Otherwise historians would never have a reason to argue.
Click to expand...

/EDITS

Myeah, but there was a bit more evidence and accounts on the Trojan war than The Iliad to entice Schliemann's research.

See, the difference here is that it wasn't solely the myth from a single source and taken out of context from a dissertation on a perfect state.

Not that a myth alone wouldn't be enough to send eager explorers to discover wonderous cities...
 
Man they can seek all they want, though as you mention Schliemann had more to go on, suspected locations for one. Let them seek if they're so inclined, but I don't get why Crni seems to think we need to take it seriously before evidence is found.
 
we dont have to take it seriously. - in the sense where you say that they will not find anything of value. I just dont see all of them searching for it as lunatics. Some historians do though. And thats what I dont understand.
 
Crni Vuk said:
we dont have to take it seriously. - in the sense where you say that they will not find anything of value. I just dont see all of them searching for it as lunatics. Some historians do though. And thats what I dont understand.
Click to expand...
What's there not to understand? Historians work in an environment where sources and research are king. Not just randomly searching for shit on nothing more than a hunch, which is what those looking for Atlantis are generally doing.

If someone finds something, that would be awesome. But the chances of that happening are infinitesimally small, and people looking for the lost city of Atlantis aren't any more credible than people looking for the crashed UFO of Area 52.
 
The practical thing for real historians and archeologists to do is exactly what they're doing now. They study the record and look for evidence of ancient civilizations, both in the record and on location, without necessarily looking for the source of a particular myth. They make new discoveries all the time. As I stated before, archeologists have found a few "candidate" sites for a historical Atlantis. (I favor Santorini myself.) One of these may have been the inspiration for Plato's writings. Actually, they ALL may inspired him.

He may have stated that the Egyptians were one of his sources. Someone commented that no such record has been found in Egyptian writings. It's possible in this case, that Egyptians may not have called any civilization "Atlantis" and that Plato made that name up. The Egyptian writings he referred to may have been simply descriptions of a seagoing people they once traded with, of which there were several. Such Egyptian descriptions may be staring scholars right in the face, but don't recognize them as "Atlantean" because Plato embellished the tale so much that "real" Atlanteans might have found it laughable.

Long story short; the truth about Atlantis is so obscure at this point that we may never be able to find it. But, I for one would be tickled to death if someone did.
 
Phil the Nuka-Cola Dude said:
Wintermind said:
The fact that people take his writing about Atlantis literally is fucking mindboggling.
Click to expand...

You could say the same thing about every religious text ever written, and the majority of people actually believe in that shit in one form or another.
Click to expand...

Except that generally most religious texts don't say "this is all bullshit, but let me make an example..." or whatever it says.
 
Brother None said:
Sorry, but both Sander and me are university-educated historians, we just don't go in for this claptrap.
Click to expand...

Can university-educated legal historians claim the same?

On a related note, Schliemann isn't a very good example of a historian, what with him going Indiana Jones on Troy and whatnot.
 
Tagaziel said:
Brother None said:
Sorry, but both Sander and me are university-educated historians, we just don't go in for this claptrap.
Click to expand...

Can university-educated legal historians claim the same?

On a related note, Schliemann isn't a very good example of a historian, what with him going Indiana Jones on Troy and whatnot.
Click to expand...


I understand where you guys are coming from, however the locations like Bimini and several others suggest a older civilization capable of pretty impresive feats. I'm not saying that Atlantis is as Plato said, but I do think cultures were wiped out by rising sea-levels and they are underwater at this time,however as you have said many seeking Atlantis are uneducated and highly speculative, so I understand your opinion on the subject.

I do feel that we should explore our oceans more than space at this point for this and many other reasons. There is much that we do not know.
 
TorontRayne said:
I understand where you guys are coming from, however the locations like Bimini and several others suggest a older civilization capable of pretty impresive feats. I'm not saying that Atlantis is as Plato said, but I do think cultures were wiped out by rising sea-levels and they are underwater at this time,however as you have said many seeking Atlantis are uneducated and highly speculative, so I understand your opinion on the subject.

I do feel that we should explore our oceans more than space at this point for this and many other reasons. There is much that we do not know.
Click to expand...
But that's something else entirely. No one has a problem with exploration and excavation in general, as that's valuable work. But there's no need to go 'Atlantis' while doing that.
 
If Atlantis did exist (plato style), then it would all be highly classified anyways. So moot point and not realy worth mentioning.

Realistically, Atlanits might have existed but it was just another low tech civilisation fucked by mother nature because it was ass unlucky.
 
because it would be obvious then that Aliens did it. Dont you pay attention !

Sander said:
Crni Vuk said:
what will you do if someone finds Atlantis while looking for it ?
Click to expand...
I'll ask him to prove it's Atlantis.
Click to expand...

Maybe my question was not detailed enough ... I meant if someone would have a "proof" for Atlantis. Anyway. I thought "finding" implied that the person would have as well something as evidence.
 
I'm not sure what kind of answer you're looking for here. If someone unequivocally proves he found Atlantis there's not much to do other than acknowledge it, is there?
 
Sander said:
I'm not sure what kind of answer you're looking for here. If someone unequivocally proves he found Atlantis there's not much to do other than acknowledge it, is there?
Click to expand...
I am just being silly again. And I love the attention.

Naw I am joking. I know you and your posting habits now long enough. I was just curious about your reaction. I guess one could not do more then to "admit" and "accept" it.

But well would it really work that way ? I mean how clear can a proof be ? It is not like you find a rock or statue with "made by atlantians 8000 B.C" written on it. So it boils down to how much credibility you place in those "evidence". And if you would be ready to accept it.

I mean many claimed that some places might be potential locations for"Atlantis" but so far nothing has shown any evidence which had some real value.

- Though maybe it was a joke or not. But it baffles me that you would rather believe in the Roswell UFO instead of a potential Atlantis civilisation - Might be the same in the end anyway ... who knows :shock: *place-your-typical-aliens-did-it-picture-here*
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top