Why mainstream Science doesn't accept Atlantis theories

the real issue is that those "stories" make it impossible to seriously do a research about "atlantis" to say that.

When it comes down to it there is only one source of information. Plato. Now he can be either right about atlantis (so it was real) or he simply talked shit (it is not real).

When ever a scientist or historian tries to find clues and do some serious research it is like a suicide. Because no one will take them/him serious anymore. Even if he does not follow this "conspiracy/mystery" crap and really trying to find evidence which speaks either for or against Atlantis.

 

I believe that there are more sources that Plato, people think that there are many candidates for what he likely meant anyway.

I watched an excellent documentry before about a city in the Southern Spainish mudflats that did seem extraordinarily well versed and connected.

I cannot remember all of the details but it seemed like the most likely candidate for any city built around circular canals and with a fabled excellence in the field of metalwork.

The people of this place also built another structure many miles to the north-east which even had an ancient egyptian symbol taking the most prominant place - I believe too that it had a connection to the art of metal working.

I'm not explaining it as well as it was in the documentry but it was jolly interesting.

 

It's possible that Plato's writings about Atlantis were inspired by historical events. It's also possible that he took creative liberties with his stories, or the events he referred to were so far in the past that by his time, the information he had was inaccurate. In any case, the truth about Atlantis may never be known. Real archeologists have found a few candidate sites for a historical Atlantis. But, until they find a ruined city with a sign saying "Welcome to Atlantis", the literary con artists and idiots will continue to thrive.

 

Well, the whole thing about the crystal and the alleged secrecy sounds like bs but is there an ancient city somewhere that sunk or got permanently covered by water? Sure, very possible.

By the way, the description that you wrote, with the whole power crystal thing, sounds a lot like Bimini wall:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=koMRsJyNecM&feature=related[/youtube]

 

Plato was a shitty philosopher anyways, way overrated. I thought his sequel, Aristotle, was much better.

 

Plato's Atlantis was likely just a metaphor, maybe even taken from others (hey, being one of the very oldest people whose writings have survived has it's perks). He didn't really care for realism, so to speak, so long as he got his point across. Because of this, any sort of city found under the water will be taken as Atlantis. Not to say it could not have drifted or something, but the tales of a wondrous, technologically advanced city (right, because that sort of thing springs overnight and is confined to one place) being stuck under the sea by the Gods or a conveniently targeted disaster seems to me about as likely as everything else in Greek mythology. Which is to say, not at all.

 

The fact that people take his writing about Atlantis literally is fucking mindboggling. I'm pretty sure that in one translation or another he even mentions that he fucking made it up for the point of an analogy.

Also reminds me of the "Ghost chasers" and "Bigfoot hunters" shows, and that are advertised like they might actually find proof. Like that'd be revealed on the fucking scifi channel or animal planet and not EVERY FUCKING NEWS OUTLET EVER. No, life after death is gonna wait for 8 o'clock on fucking Syfy.

The most hope that Atlantis ever has for existing is that it's some known about sunken city that has been identified as something else, and someone somehow proving that some dudes once called it Atlantis.

 

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.

 

So you're a professional historian ?

Plato mentions ancient egypt as source. But since no one has ever found anything by them which mentions "Atlantis" there is of course no way how to verify the informations given by him.

Though I still find it funny how fast many just claim "that its impossible". As like things really work that way.

didn't people thought Troy was just a myth either ? Good for Schliemann I guess that he didn't listen to this "serious" scientists.

I am not saying Atlantis would be real. I just say it "could" be a possibility. There are still many things we simply don't know. There is even no clear evidence about the pyramids as graves. It are all just speculations which simply seem likely. I say it again before someone jumps on me. I do NOT say those "scientists" or "historians" are incorrect. I am just saying that history has proven countless times that things are not always set in stone. That is the interesting part about history. I mean what we see today is just a glimpse of the true picture after all. We look at parts of the world which are more then 5 or 10 000 years old. We probably will never have a chance to completely understand it. And there might be things we will never find out either.

 

This. I wonder what people would say say if i claimed that a civilization that didn't know about the wheel constructed a gigantic city on the top of a mountain.

 

I love the smell of logical fallacies in the morning.

 

And I completely agree with you here.

The question is just:

Can we claim that it is impossible ?

Is that what I mean BN ? I like you and all but sometimes you come of as ... I don't know.

Look. Maybe it is lost in translation. But I never claim Atlantis to be true. It is just serving as example. Do you want to explain to me History or "geschiedenis van de oudheid" works like Math ?

There are so many examples in history where sources and situations have been either incorrectly interpreted or simply disappeared just to be discovered latter again. I see it happen for example many times around World War 2 (which is one of my really big interests).

I never said I believe Atlantis to be "real". I just say we can not completely rule out the possibility and we should not simply think about every historian looking for evidence as "lunatic" just because he spends time with it.

Is it likely that Atlantis exists ? Probably not.

But I say it again. History has many examples where new forms/ways of research revealed informations which appear in a new light. Like the position Roman sources had in the history of the past and today where historians slowly dig out more and more informations about the celts and other cultures BEFORE the romans dominated them. It seems more likely that they taught the romans culture (by assimilation) and not the other way. - though that is not a new theory of course.

Of course just because there is no evidence which speaks against Atlantis does not mean it has to exist - I realise that is not the way how things work or how you prove something but that is not what I am talking about. And it is very likely that it was one of Platos pipe-dreams. But I do not rule out the possibility completely. And I do not think that everyone who is searching for it might be some idiot. I mean who knows. Maybe someone will really find a rock with "made by atlantians" or something like that. How could we ever be sure if no one is looking for it at least ?

If we turn everything down just because it sounds unlikely to us now we might have overlooked many things from in the past. Thinking sometimes outside the box or what science sees as "normal" isn't that bad. As long it does not end this way:



*I hope you get what I mean.

 

Atlantis was nothing more than a myth during Plato's life (and had been for over 9000 years!).

It was not meant to be taken literally like so many pseudo scientists and goof balls have been doing.

But pseudo scientific gobbledygook sells well. (see also UFO's, Loch Ness, Bigfoot, Sasquatch, Scientology, Bible,...)

 

Schlimann wasn't. And he basically moved with the Iliad in his hands to search for troy of which many thought it was just a myth. - Well it was of course a bit more then that but you get the picture.

I am not trying to attack or provoke you I recognize that you're the person with education - didnt knew either that Sander is a historian?. I am just saying that we should not just shrug of a myth as fruitless because it seems unlikely. What I see many times is that opinions play a very important role in the interpretation of informations. Otherwise historians would never have a reason to argue.