Destroyed Atlantis = Menorah

[King of the Americas]

... Or are you just going to insult people in the hope that you can distract us?

I'm going to treat people who ignore evidence the way they deserve.

 

[King of the Americas]

So, once again, at what point in history were humans balls with 4 arms, legs and two heads?

...

No idea, I haven't researched it. We are talking about the menorah at the moment.

 

[King of the Americas]

Why?

Because worshiping meaningless objects is pointless.

 

[Porpoise of Life]

How droll.
You ask for a refutation and when you get one you call people names and ignore what they've posted.
Also, still no answers to any of the questions you were asked.

I wonder if the name calling and refusal to engage other posters means you know you've got nothing...

 

[fagin]

I'm going to treat people who ignore evidence the way they deserve.

I don't think that word means what you seem to think it means.

 

[King of the Americas]

Well, no. By definition, it would be worse, since it is the WEAKEST, making the "lamp" explanation stronger automatically.

You know, logic?

My Claim- Water is wet.

My Evidence- A drop touched my skin, now the skin is moist.

Your Counter Argument- Your evidence is too small.

Your Conclusion- Water is dry.

Your logic is...not worth my time.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

I'm going to treat people who ignore evidence the way they deserve.

 

[Belz...]

Because worshiping meaningless objects is pointless.

Your explanation does not explain worship. It's worship because it was ordained by god as a symbol of the faith, just like the Ark, which you like to ignore, was.

 

[Belz...]

My Claim- Water is wet.

My Evidence- A drop touched my skin, now the skin is moist.

Your Counter Argument- Your evidence is too small.

Your Conclusion- Water is dry.

Your logic is...not worth my time.

I can't help but notice that your reply here does not address my post.

It's smoke and mirrors, but purchased from a bum on the street rather than from a reputable magic shop.

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

No idea, I haven't researched it. We are talking about the menorah at the moment.

Yes, but given that you make your whole claim on the basis that Plato described Atlantis, so it must be real and from there make an (utterly unfounded) link to a cultural artifact of a totally different culture AND claim that Plato would not use allegories, I would like you to answer this.

After all, Plato explained how our earlier 2-headed ball like form was ideal and how we spend all our time searching for our other half. So, when did this happen and where are the fossils or rock-paintings?

 

[King of the Americas]

How droll.
You ask for a refutation and when you get one you call people names and ignore what they've posted.
...

I asked for an alternative theory.

 

[Belz...]

I asked for an alternative theory.

It's irrelevant: you need to demonstrate that YOUR theory is correct. You have not done that, nor have you addressed the objections to your arguments properly. This request for alternatives is a smokescreen. I told you before: not knowing is no excuse to assume a particular answer.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

KotA, do you know what a metaphor is?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

My Claim- Water is wet.

My Evidence- A drop touched my skin, now the skin is moist.

Your Counter Argument- Your evidence is too small.

Your Conclusion- Water is dry.

Your logic is...not worth my time.

Mmm. Not really.

It's a bit more like;

Your claim - your skin is wet.

Your further claim - Plato wrote about a fictional character who described a fantastical liquid which could make things wet. Except that it was bright blue and reeked of garlic.

Your further, further claim - that could explain why you're wet. He was probably just mistaken about the colour and the smell.

Your challenge - can anyone come up with a better explanation of why you're wet?

 

[Belz...]

Mmm. Not really.

It's a bit more like;

Your claim - your skin is wet.

Your further claim - Plato wrote about a fictional character who described a fantastical liquid which could make things wet. Except that it was bright blue and reeked of garlic.

Your further, further claim - that could explain why you're wet. He was probably just mistaken about the colour and the smell.

Your challenge - can anyone come up with a better explanation of why you're wet?

And certainly not just water: that's way too simple.

 

[Cervelo]

I'm going to treat people who ignore evidence the way they deserve.

Let us know when you have some....that you know supports your baseless claim. Nobody's ignoring your "evidence"...it's just that it makes no sense to anyone but you.
You've done a lot of ignoring questions, hand waving, red herring slinging and a little twisting in the wind....now your passing some sort of judgement on people because you can't support your claim....nice stuff

 

[King of the Americas]

KotA, do you know what a metaphor is?

Yes.

Do you know where the menorah came from?

 

[Porpoise of Life]

Yes.

Do you know where the menorah came from?

From Jewish tradition.

Now, if you want to claim that it actually came from something else prior to that, it's up to you to establish that link.

 

[SOdhner]

You're misquoting me...

No, I was just quoting you. Here, I'll do it again.

Still no word on how Plato is simultaneously correct about the existence of Atlantis because he is a trustworthy teacher, yet at the same time completely wrong about the size, location and dating because... reasons?

So that's the original question. Since the source (Plato) is wrong about all the details, how do we know he's right about the thing in general? This is, obviously, a fair question. "How do we know the source is good?"

Because NO single source of history is sans errors.

An accurate historical account must be mined from the all available sources.

*I hate having to repeat myself...

You say because no SINGLE source is without error, we need to look at ALL sources. The only way this could possibly be a reply to the above would be if you are suggesting there are sources independent of Plato. So I point this out:

You just said "all the available sources", but there's literally only one source and it's the one that you are saying is wrong in almost every way.

What other sources do you have for Atlantis existing that nobody on Earth has ever heard of before?

Or when you said "all available sources" were you just referring to the one source? The one that was wrong about the shape, location, size, age...

And you say that Plato is part of "all" but you use the word "also" making it unclear if you are somehow insisting there are multiple sources:

Plato's writings also have to be mined, as they are included in the "ALL" super-set.

So I ask again:

I think you didn't understand my post. Let's try again:

Since Plato's writings are literally the only account of Atlantis, what ELSE is in the "all" super-set?

You pull the exact same trick, saying "too" as if there's more than one source. But you do say "if other evidence arises" which I guess is good enough to show that you're acknowledging that Plato is the only source we have.

I understood your question.

My response is that since Plato is part of the ALL super-set, it too has to be mined for truth.

---

If or as other evidence arises, it too will need to be mined.

So now you're answering "How do we know the source is good, when it was wrong about so much?" with "By using that source" which makes zero sense. I point that out:

Okay, then that makes it a nonsensical response to the original point:

The question, as you can see above, is pointing out that Plato was (by your logic) wrong about almost every aspect of Atlantis (size, shape, location, age, etc.) and you responded by saying that's okay because you take everything into account.

But now you're admitting that "everything" is just Plato. So it becomes:

"Plato is unreliable, but that's okay because I'm also relying on Plato!"

This is, obviously, nonsense.

And now you're saying I misquoted you, which I obviously never did. Are we finally on the same page? Can you concede that answering "If you think this source is wrong about virtually everything, why do we know he's right about other parts?" with "Because Plato!" doesn't work?

If we were to throw out every single historical account the contained errors we have nothing but an empty tub, with a baby suffering exposure outside the window you just tossed he/she through.

Sure, sure. That's fine. But that doesn't mean we should assume everything is correct that we can't conclusively prove is false. Here's where you stand right now:

Assuming he was even trying to write a historical account (remember, this was dialogue from a fictional character) Plato was wrong about the size, shape, location, and age of Atlantis. Not just wrong by being a little off, but massively wrong and wrong with a bunch of included false details. Specific details about the geography, fauna, population, etc. that cannot possibly be right if Atlantis is what and where you say. So he's not just omitting things or making a mistake with metric to imperial conversions - he's actively including incorrect information in huge quantities. I don't have the energy to check the wordcount of the parts actually describing Atlantis, but I'd say we're talking about around 90% being false at this point. But we're going to assume that the other parts are somehow dead on? That's absurd.

If we applied these same loose standards to other works, we would immediately "prove" every religion true and end up with a hundred conflicting histories to boot.

So let's try that again:

Since by your own logic Plato's account was almost entirely wrong, why are you so sure the rest of it is correct?

 

[King of the Americas]

...Nobody's ignoring your "evidence"...it's just that it makes no sense to anyone but you...

Yup James Cameron and National Geographic are truly "Nobodies."