Destroyed Atlantis = Menorah

[Cervelo]

I was referring to his placement on my Ignore List.

He flatly ignored the evidence I presented, and claimed it was proof Plato was wrong.

Baseless claim...?

You REALLY should not ignore links, and then claim someone is making baseless claims.

You've yet to provide anything to support your claim...you have proven your ignorance on the subject matter quite well!

 

[Cervelo]

Watch the video or ignore it and claim victory!

I don't care!

You need to provide the support for your claim...start "mining the truth" and present your argument. Your claim you do the work.

 

[SOdhner]

We have a myth of a sunk city/civilization named Atlantis. Finding sunken ruins named "Admantiz" would mean what, exactly, that "Atlantis" never existed, or that the original myth was indeed true?

Certainly finding some ruins wouldn't prove Atlantis didn't exist, in the same way that eating a sandwich wouldn't prove that Atlantis didn't exist. Even if we say those ruins aren't Atlantis, that isn't proof that Atlantis isn't out there somewhere.

But it also doesn't prove that there *is* an Atlantis. Ruins are common. Ruins that are submerged can be found all over. If you want to say a specific set of ruins are Atlantis, you would need to provide evidence for that.

If we found out the name somehow and it was at least similar to 'Atlantis' then that would certainly count as evidence, although it wouldn't prove it by itself. We'd also be looking to see how many of the properties of the legend of Atlantis it has. So:

1. Is it the right size?
2. Do we see the features described by Plato such as the canals, or the temple, etc.?
3. Is the geography right in terms of the mountains Plato described?
4. Is it in the right location (a distant point in the Atlantic, as measured from the strait of Gibraltar)
5. Are the ruins the right age? If they were built way after Plato's account they can't be Atlantis.
6. Is there evidence that they were a large seafaraing culture with a strong military? (Found ships or something?)

Obviously we wouldn't be demanding that ALL of the above were proven, but each additional one would bring us closer to being able to say that this was probably Atlantis. Your ruins on the coast of Spain don't seem to match any of the above unless I'm missing something. So I think we're all a little confused as to why you're so sure these ruins inspired Plato's tale.

Unless that's not what you're claiming anymore? You've started putting Atlantis in quotes and calling the ruins Atlantean rather than calling them Atlantis. It seems like you might be shifting your standards somewhat, and I think we would all like it if you could please, with no quotation marks or gratuitous use of qualifiers like 'if', tell us EXACTLY what you're saying the connection is between Atlantis and these symbols.

Once you've clarified that, you can present evidence that backs up your claim, as well as evidence that links those symbols to the Jewish people.

Sunken city, at the bottom of the Atlantic, that we have yet to study/name/excavate is proof that Plato was wrong...?

That's not what he said, though. You keep misinterpreting what we say. He didn't say these ruins are proof that Plato was wrong, he pointed out that your stance on Plato's accuracy doesn't seem to match your treatment of these ruins. You're saying that Plato's account was historical, but then you're also saying he got essentially every single detail wrong. If he can be wrong about all of the substance of the account, why assume that any of it was correct?

No, can't blame you. It's much easier to ignore valid criticism if you can't actually see it. It's not as if you haven't been ignoring everything I've posted so far.
Now, whether or not the internet equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and going nananananana is the mature thing to do? I'll leave that to the other posters to decide.

Well, the main problem I see is that you said something that pretty much all of us have pointed out. So unless him putting you on ignore was due to things other than what he quoted he's going to have to ignore all of us.

Then again, in a way he's already ignoring me. I don't think I'm on his actual ignore list but he's been cherry-picking one sentence out of my posts he can misinterpret to have an issue with and then not responding to the rest.

I guess I'll give him the benefit of the doubt on my most recent posts (759 & 760) since depending on your setting those are at the very bottom of a page and so he may have missed them. Still, I'm not holding my breath. I've been showing him why the evidence so far provided doesn't apply to the actual core claim and asking for relevant evidence for a long time, and he hasn't been replying.

 

[SOdhner]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZyfE3IvDWR8

I'm listening to it now, but I saw this disclaimer on it:

NOTE from TED: Please be aware that this talk contains outdated and counterfactual assertions, and should not be understood as a representation of modern scholarship on ancient civilizations.

Emphasis added.

Since it doesn't specify which parts are outdated or counterfactual I feel like we should just avoid this as a source.

EDIT:

I watched the whole thing. I'm not going into detail because it would be off-topic, but first of all let me just say that I (and I would wager the majority of the people on these forums) do not consider Graham Hancock to be a reliable source. That being said, even if I take the whole video as fact it doesn't actually provide evidence linking the menorah in any way to Atlantis.

 

[fuelair]

You were yelling and screaming at us for daring to doubt the factuality of the great Plato and his great attention to details and accuracy upon which his reputation supposedly depended, but when it suits you, you just claim that everything Plato wrote can be ignored, as long as we find a tiny little ruin that's under water.
The location is irrelevant, the size doesn't matter, nor does the dating, shape, culture. Plato can get all of those wrong, but still needs to be regarded as an historian who would never write something that isn't factual because...
Well, because you don't have an argument to make.


Of course, we've been over this before, but you don't listen.

My point exactly!!!!!!!!!

 

[King of the Americas]

I'm listening to it now, but I saw this disclaimer on it:



Emphasis added.

Since it doesn't specify which parts are outdated or counterfactual I feel like we should just avoid this as a source.

EDIT:

I watched the whole thing. I'm not going into detail because it would be off-topic, but first of all let me just say that I (and I would wager the majority of the people on these forums) do not consider Graham Hancock to be a reliable source. That being said, even if I take the whole video as fact it doesn't actually provide evidence linking the menorah in any way to Atlantis.

Yes, there was controversy from Ted, toward Hancock. Immediately after the taping Ted removed the video from their site, to disassociate themselves from his claims. After a backlash, the put the video back up, with the disclaimer.

The part from the video that is relevant here, and that you'll need to address, is the 'date' Plato chose for a 'real' Atlantis. It corresponds with an event called the Younger Dryas, marking a period of flood caused by an asteroid that came apart before impact. If it is fiction, Plato just happened to pick the perfect date that corresponds to an actual destructive event.

He also notes that a similar story, with different names, spawned from India, with the same date.

Saying someone isn't a reliable source without addressing the actual evidence they presented is...something that will get you invited to the Porpoise of Life party.

I beg you not to pursue such tactics.

 

[King of the Americas]

My point exactly!!!!!!!!!

That's not a point. It is a demonstration of how to use imperfect evidence to attack entire histories and their writers.

Presented with only underwater ruins, the poster used the unexamined evidence to claim Plato had to be entirely wrong.

My patience has limits.

 

[Porpoise of Life]

Yes, there was controversy from Ted, toward Hancock. Immediately after the taping Ted removed the video from their site, to disassociate themselves from his claims. After a backlash, the put the video back up, with the disclaimer.

The part from the video that is relevant here, and that you'll need to address, is the 'date' Plato chose for a 'real' Atlantis. It corresponds with an event called the Younger Dryas, marking a period of flood caused by an asteroid that came apart before impact. If it is fiction, Plato just happened to pick the perfect date that corresponds to an actual destructive event.

He also notes that a similar story, with different names, spawned from India, with the same date.

Saying someone isn't a reliable source without addressing the actual evidence they presented is...something that will get you invited to the Porpoise of Life party.

I beg you not to pursue such tactics.

Wait? You claimed that a bronze age ruin was Atlantis, but now you're claiming that Plato's dating was correct and Atlantis was destroyed 12000 years ago?
You're even inconsistent in your cherry picking.

 

[Porpoise of Life]

That's not a point. It is a demonstration of how to use imperfect evidence to attack entire histories and their writers.

Presented with only underwater ruins, the poster used the unexamined evidence to claim Plato had to be entirely wrong.

My patience has limits.

Stop lying, our posts are there for everyone to read.

What I was saying is that you claim that Plato should be believed, even when you yourself assume that he got every single detail wrong.

The implied question obviously being: how can you conclude that he was correct if he got everything he wrote wrong? What truth is there left to mine from a source that you yourself claim cannot be taken literally because everything it says about Atlantis is incorrect?

 

[SOdhner]

The part from the video that is relevant here, and that you'll need to address, is the 'date' Plato chose for a 'real' Atlantis. It corresponds with an event called the Younger Dryas, marking a period of flood caused by an asteroid that came apart before impact. If it is fiction, Plato just happened to pick the perfect date that corresponds to an actual destructive event.

My own Googling doesn't bring up anything to support the assertions in this video, but honestly I don't care. As I've said before, I'm still waiting for evidence that shows any link between Atlantis and the menorah. This video clearly doesn't have that. It (arguably) is evidence making the existence of Atlantis more plausible but even if we take Atlantis as totally proven that doesn't give you evidence of a link between Atlantis and the menorah.

Saying someone isn't a reliable source without addressing the actual evidence they presented is...something that will get you invited to the Porpoise of Life party.

It would derail the thread even further. I'm not prepared to go into a huge thing about all the things Hancock has done and said that I find dishonest here, especially since I don't think that his video has a lot to do with your claim.
EDIT: Misread, thought you were demanding reasons I generally find him to be untrustworthy. But anyway my answer is similar, I don't want to get into the details of the video because even if I totally accept everything he said it still doesn't provide evidence linking Atlantis to the menorah /EDIT

Presented with only underwater ruins, the poster used the unexamined evidence to claim Plato had to be entirely wrong.

That's not what he said. As I've already explained (in yet another of my posts that you're ignoring) he was just pointing out that you yourself were saying Plato was wrong about essentially everything and simultaneously declaring Plato to be accurate. This is a fair thing to point out, and rather than respond you put him on ignore.

Anyway, I notice you didn't actually address anything of substance in my posts. Is that your way of acknowledging that you have no evidence showing:

1. There's some connection between the symbols and Atlantis.
2. There's some connection between the symbols and the menorah.

Also as I've requested a few times now can you please, with no quotation marks or gratuitous use of qualifiers like 'if', tell us EXACTLY what you're saying the connection is between Atlantis and these symbols?

 

[The Greater Fool]

Stop lying, our posts are there for everyone to read.

What I was saying is that you claim that Plato should be believed, even when you yourself assume that he got every single detail wrong.

The implied question obviously being: how can you conclude that he was correct if he got everything he wrote wrong? What truth is there left to mine from a source that you yourself claim cannot be taken literally because everything it says about Atlantis is incorrect?

These are reasonable questions.

 

[King of the Americas]

These are reasonable questions.

Then I invite you to enjoy your exchanges with that poster.

 

[King of the Americas]

...

Anyway, I notice you didn't actually address anything of substance in my posts. Is that your way of acknowledging that you have no evidence showing:

1. There's some connection between the symbols and Atlantis.
2. There's some connection between the symbols and the menorah.

Also as I've requested a few times now can you please, with no quotation marks or gratuitous use of qualifiers like 'if', tell us EXACTLY what you're saying the connection is between Atlantis and these symbols?

Have no evidence showing...?

Edited by jsfisher: 

<snip> Edited for compliance with Rules 0 and 11 of the Membership Agreement. The contents of your ignore list is often uncivil and never on topic.

 

[SOdhner]

Have no evidence showing...?

*Ignore Listed*

Ah, yes! That amazing debate tactic of "put people who ask for evidence on the ignore list". Classic. Of course it only really works if you're delusional, since it doesn't convince anyone else that the evidence exists.

Since Porpoise of Life and I were both put on ignore for asking questions that essentially everyone here has asked, how long do you think it will be before he just ignores everyone and then wonders why nobody will reply to him?

 

[abaddon]

I think it has been mentioned before, but I think it is worth repeating. The number seven is important in judaism.

http://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/judaism-numbers/
(I am sorry for the missing parts. I assume it is pictures that have not been copied. /Hgus)

As long as you continue to intentionally bork quotes, what conclusion can anyone draw?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Significance_of_numbers_in_Judaism
7: [/HILITE]

Agreed.

Then why not KEEP the "7"...why allow it to evolve and or change to 8 or 9, and become candles rather than lamps, and change its shape?

7- planets, days, toes on someone missing the piggy who had roast beef, none, and the one who wee'd all the way home. To some seven symbolized the 3 concentric circles of Atlantis, cut in half, and mistaken for a candle holder/lamp.

There are eight planets. Your Menorah somehow missed that.

Lamps or candle holders? 7, 8, or 9 flames?

I pick one. So what? My kids like it because it is scented. Should I faint?

Number symbolism? Why not gold symbolism, light symbolism?

Whose number symbolism? Why do you reject Mayan number symbolism? Number symbolism is ten a penny. Or possibly nine a penny. Or even 666 a penny. Or insert number of choice.

It is ALL 'made up' symbolism...

Sure. So what?

No one KNOWS exactly what the menorah means or represents, or why lamps turned to candles? (*Let's bring Herman Melville into this!? lol)

No. You claim that you do know.

My point is, that it was an adopted symbol, otherwise meaningless to the Jewish people. They have applied their own meaning(s).

Yet you reject adopted symbols. That is simply incoherent.

What would a Nazi say the swastika represents?

And Godwin.

 

[abaddon]

...

Anyway, I notice you didn't actually address anything of substance in my posts. Is that your way of acknowledging that you have no evidence showing:

1. There's some connection between the symbols and Atlantis.
2. There's some connection between the symbols and the menorah.

Also as I've requested a few times now can you please, with no quotation marks or gratuitous use of qualifiers like 'if', tell us EXACTLY what you're saying the connection is between Atlantis and these symbols?

Have no evidence showing...?

*Ignore Listed*

Are you stating that you will ignore anyone who challenges your cherished beliefs?

Are you stating that you will ignore anyone who disagrees with you?

Are you stating that your ideas are so fragile that they cannot stand any scrutiny at all?

Is that your claim?

It certainly seems to be the case.

If you think differently, the floor is yours.

 

[King of the Americas]

As long as you continue to intentionally bork quotes, what conclusion can anyone draw?


There are eight planets. Your Menorah somehow missed that.


I pick one. So what? My kids like it because it is scented. Should I faint?

Whose number symbolism? Why do you reject Mayan number symbolism? Number symbolism is ten a penny. Or possibly nine a penny. Or even 666 a penny. Or insert number of choice.

Sure. So what?

No. You claim that you do know.

Yet you reject adopted symbols. That is simply incoherent.

And Godwin.

I didn't 'bork' or ignore anything. I addressed it later in my post.

The number of 'known' planets has changed. Ask Pluto.

If you turn a crucifix sideways, it is only a line. Does a line represent Christianity?

I haven't rejected anything...

So what? This is my evidence that the symbol was adopted! You just 'so what'ed' evidence...!! Keep it up, my ignore list has room.

Nope, wrong again. I am claiming that the best most reasonable origin of the menorah is that it represents a destroyed Atlantis. I don't KNOW this to be true. I believe it is best possible explanation given the facts as we have them. If presented with an alternative theory, with better evidence, I shall change my mind. The only people who claim absolute knowledge are those claiming Plato is ONLY pure fiction.

Ummm, no. I am arguing that the menorah was adopted, that symbols get adopted ALL the time.

Godwin? I'm gonna need more context.

 

[SOdhner]

So what? This is my evidence that the symbol was adopted!

Despite the billion times I explained to him that "evidence the symbol was adopted" does not equal "evidence it was adopted FROM THIS SPECIFIC SOURCE". He still hasn't presented any evidence that actually links Atlantis to the menorah and that's literally the whole point of this thread.

You just 'so what'ed' evidence...!! Keep it up, my ignore list has room.

Like I said, he's going to end up putting the whole forum on ignore if these are his standards.

Ummm, no. I am arguing that the menorah was adopted, that symbols get adopted ALL the time.

And obviously if the menorah COULD have been adopted it MUST have been specifically adopted from a reference to the mythical nation of Atlantis. Clearly.

How does he think he's presented evidence for his actual claim?

 

[abaddon]

You certainly borked your post. The quote is messed up. I am confronted with two possibilities. Purposeful or accidental.

Given that I pointed it out to you, which would you pick?

 

[abaddon]

I didn't 'bork' or ignore anything. I addressed it later in my post.

The number of 'known' planets has changed. Ask Pluto.

If you turn a crucifix sideways, it is only a line. Does a line represent Christianity?

I haven't rejected anything...

So what? This is my evidence that the symbol was adopted! You just 'so what'ed' evidence...!! Keep it up, my ignore list has room.

Nope, wrong again. I am claiming that the best most reasonable origin of the menorah is that it represents a destroyed Atlantis. I don't KNOW this to be true. I believe it is best possible explanation given the facts as we have them. If presented with an alternative theory, with better evidence, I shall change my mind. The only people who claim absolute knowledge are those claiming Plato is ONLY pure fiction.

Ummm, no. I am arguing that the menorah was adopted, that symbols get adopted ALL the time.

Godwin? I'm gonna need more context.

No, you will continue to bork quotations.