Live data from Hacker News

The Truth about Atlantis (2019)

talesoftimesforgotten.com

61–70 of 149 posts

Re: The Truth about Atlantis (2019)

#61
post #59

> The line of transmission is so long and convoluted that there are literally more than a half dozen different people who could have plausibly made the story up. Ditto for The Iliad and The Odysee, yet Troy existed. That's the thing about oral traditions. They are like a telephone game where the story changes a bit with each retelling, so they are not trustworthy, but societies that engaged in epic storytelling did t…

"Ditto for The Iliad and The Odysee, yet Troy existed." - As I said in a different comment this comparison makes no sense. Troy was continuously inhabited up until around 1300, we have artifacts like coins from there and multiple attestations from contemporary sources. The only thing that was debated was if the ancient city was underneath the more contemporary one or a few miles away. That is nothing like Atlantis.

People used to think Troy was fictional. People (myself included) think Atlantis is fictional. The difference is: Troy was much closer to us in time, and it was found.

Re: The Truth about Atlantis (2019)

#62
post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Ditto for The Iliad and The Odysee, yet Troy existed." - As I said in a different comment this comparison makes no sense. Troy was continuously inhabited up until around 1300, we have artifacts like coins from there and multiple attestations from contemporary sources. The only thing that was debated was if the ancient city was underneath the more contemporary one or a few miles away. That is nothing like Atlantis.

People used to think Troy was fictional. People (myself included) think Atlantis is fictional. The difference is: Troy was much closer to us in time, and it was found.

People didn't use to think Troy was fictional, where did you get that idea?

Edit: to be clear there is no evidence that the Trojan war happened as described, but that doesn't mean Troy is a fiction anymore then Sparta or Ithaca are.

Re: The Truth about Atlantis (2019)

#63
post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is according to the Achilleid by Publius Statius. if you have different material that you think better establish Achilles' history than the Achilleid please provide it instead of resorting to name calling.

"Achilles was bathed by his mom in the river Styx, not in the blood of a dragon." Right. The Problem is, that I never claimed this. And based on the Thread, every half educated person would have realized that this is a quote regarding the Nibelungen tale that was mentioned before.

You're right, I was ignorant about the Nibelungen and assumed it was about Achilles. If you had just provided the information to me instead of resorting to name calling (twice now) without adding anything to the conversation (comments on HN are supposed to add something to the conversation, I imagine you know that), I would have learned something new, we both would have wasted less time by arguing back and forth, and I would have thought "Hey what a nice and educated guy this Beijinger is" instead of "I guess he is one of those people who have to put other people down in order to feel better about themselves". But you do you.

Re: The Truth about Atlantis (2019)

#64
post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But that's not the flood in Genesis. Not even close to it, for instance in Genesis the land is flooded and then the waters recede and the land comes back, whereas the Black Sea is still a sea. You're just pointing at a flood and saying it must be the origin of a story of a flood, but there's no basis for it.

And where did Noah Land after the flood? Right. Mount Ararat

What is the significance of that to you? Mount Ararat doesn't stick out of the sea.

Re: The Truth about Atlantis (2019)

#65
post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It depends. In most Nibelungen texts, he doesn’t encounter a dragon, but rather a long lindworm with shiny armor. In these accounts, someone slays the lindworm, but not through direct combat. Instead, he uses an invisibility cloak, takes the creature's treasure, and bathes in its blood. Later, he meets his end due to treachery. Clearly, this is a work of fantasy. But what about the Roman historian's lament regarding…

What is the basis for thinking that it's not just a work of fantasy and has to be a retelling of real events? We have plenty of examples of people making up fantasy stories, why add this extra step that has no evidence for it?

How many coincidences? There are many (slightly different) versions of the text were discovered over a vast area? Germany, Norway etc. It must have been an extremely important "fairy tale". All this should raise suspicion.

Re: The Truth about Atlantis (2019)

#66
post #8

I could take this article more seriously if it were to credibly refute the possibility that the capital of Atlantis was the richat structure, and that the empire of Atlantis covered the saharah, with a port of entry just outside the straight of Gibraltar. I think its accepted that ~13,000 years ago the Sahara was lush forests and grasslands, and around that time there was a significant meteor strike (or several) that…

Plus all the details that conveniently line up. The mountains with rivers to the north. Being south of the Atlas mountains – Atlas being the first king of Atlantis. "Atlantis" meaning "island of Atlantis" is interesting because it's likely that if water were present in the rings, it would have the appearance of an island, and there are two forms of evidence that there was: zoom out on Maps/Earth and see the obvious w…

Correction: Island of Atlas

Re: The Truth about Atlantis (2019)

#67
post #22

"If you are like most Americans, chances are, you probably believe that Atlantis or another civilization like it once existed. A survey conducted by Chapman University in October 2014 found that, at that time, roughly 63% of people in the United States agreed or strongly agreed with the statement “ancient, advanced civilizations, such as Atlantis, once existed.” I am pretty sure that Atlantis existed in one way or an…

> We found that the the Great Flood in the book of Genesis existed Can you elaborate what you mean by the "Great Flood"? There's certainly evidence for regional megafloods, but I'm not aware of any professional geologic body that recognizes what most people mean when they say "Great Flood", i.e. a single planet-wide flood around that time period.

"most people mean"

implies most people since the King James version was published. Not at all clear that's what author meant; the concept of the world as we now know it didn't exist then.

So very reasonable to conclude that the Great Flood in Genesis was meant to describe a regional megaflood, which innundated the "whole world" meaning all of Mesopotamian civilization.

And there is archeological evidence of ancient cities totally buried in mud, i.e. as you say regional megafloods.

Re: The Truth about Atlantis (2019)

#68
post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is the basis for thinking that it's not just a work of fantasy and has to be a retelling of real events? We have plenty of examples of people making up fantasy stories, why add this extra step that has no evidence for it?

How many coincidences? There are many (slightly different) versions of the text were discovered over a vast area? Germany, Norway etc. It must have been an extremely important "fairy tale". All this should raise suspicion.

I mean, none of the things you've really said feel like coincidences to me since you're basically saying the dragon is a metaphor. And there are plenty of other stories that are found over a large area and have a lot of different versions since that's what happens with oral stories.

On the other hand we know people today make up fantasy stories all the time, so thinking that people in the past must have been just what, encoding their history in elaborate metaphor?

Re: The Truth about Atlantis (2019)

#69
Damn some of the comments here are really depressing. I'd formerly thought HN was one of the last bastions of critical thought on internet, but I guess I was wrong judging by some of these comments. Way too much regurgitation of long-since debunked pseudo-scientific nonsense.

Atlantis was never real and anyone who thinks it was is a moron.

If there were truly some sort of globe-spanning advanced civilization existing ~11KYA we'd have found at least one single piece of their material culture by now, but we haven't. We have however found innumerable pieces of archaeological evidence of contemporary hunter-gatherer neolithic societies in and around all of the places Atlantis was supposed to have "Conquered" and yet not once have we found a single Atlantean trade good, pot sherd, metal working, etc. Atlantis supposedly had a bronze-age or greater level of technology and a globe-spanning empire, and we literally haven't found a single shred of physical evidence to support its existence, despite having literal mountains of physical evidence for pretty much every other major empire that's existed throughout history.

Nor have we found any genetic evidence in people or crops that there was any kind of "Empire" connecting parts of Europe or Africa as we find time and time again with real empires that actually existed in prehistory. Real empires have people and crops that move around within the empire and leave genetic evidence of the mixing of populations and breeding of crops, yet we find nothing, not even the faintest echo of Atlantis. Again, we have mountains of hard physical evidence that shows how empires like the Summerians in the fertile crescent or the Norte Chico in meso-america spread through genetic evidence in current local populations and crops, yet we find absolutely no genetic evidence to support the existence of Atlantis.

Let alone the fact the bloody story of Atlantis references how the Atlanteans went to war with Athens some 9000 years before the Athenian city-state was even founded. Just utter, complete brain-dead nonsense.

Honestly, belief in Atlantis has become something a litmus-test for critical thinking and research ability these days, as anyone that believes in Atlantis despite the overwhelming volume of evidence that firmly proves it never existed is basically saying "I'm too lazy to do my own research (Based on peer-reviewed primary sources) and / or too stupid to understand actual science."

Also f*ck Graham Hancock (And Joe Rogan via extension). MFer is the worst kind of charlatan and is broadly responsible for how many Americans believe in Atlantis.

Re: The Truth about Atlantis (2019)

#70
post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What exactly is "missing" in understanding how the Egyptians built the pyramids? Why is it so hard to understand how a population of millions with a ton of unused labor during flood season built a bunch of scaffolding and moved a bunch of rocks around?

You must not be familiar with its architecture to be so dismissive. That’s the hn equivalent of calling Amazon “just a website”

So are you saying aliens or some unknown advanced civilization built Amazon? No, just like the Pyramids it was built by huge number of ordinary humans with ordinary technology.
Post reply on HN