Atlantis Found

[Bungle_Bear]

evidence (not speculation) is here

Examples of the "evidence" compared to reality:
1. Atlantis had a connection to the sea to the south. The "evidence" provided is a supposed connection - to the south-west.
2. Atlantis was surrounded by a flat plain. The "evidence" provided is a flat area to one side. There is no surrounding plain.

It's clear why you need faith to accept the "evidence". There is none.

 

[JohnEmmett]

It's clear why you need faith to accept the evidence. There is none.

it's obvious this is Atlantis


but not to everyone

 

[Bungle_Bear]

I'm amazed you can't see

Says the man who cannot see.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

it's obvious this is Atlantis

The evidence says otherwise.

 

[JohnEmmett]

Says the man who cannot see.

I don't see the point of your comments

 

[Bungle_Bear]

I don't see the point of your comments

That's ironic.

 

[Strathos]

Atlantis is the subject

Then you lack faith in Atlantis being fictional. See, we can do this all day.

 

[Kylie]

3 videos were shared

Which were debunked.

 

[Kylie]

To accept Atlantis … faith is required

You seem to be going around in circles. You present "evidence" and then when that "evidence" is debunked you claim we have to accept it on faith. Then when we say that we need more than faith you claim to be able to produce evidence, but it's simply a repeat of what has already been dismissed as insufficient.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

evidence (not speculation) is here

It's not evidence, just speculation based on a few apparent correlations. Good evidence would be signs of large scale habitation and trading at the site in the appropriate period.

 

[JohnEmmett]

Which were debunked.

No…

Some accept, some don't

 

[JohnEmmett]

you claim we have to accept it on faith.

you lack faith and don't accept


this is not mysterious

 

[Kylie]

No…

Some accept, some don't

You've provided nothing more than supposition to accept. I will accept it only when you provide actual evidence that withstands investigation.

you lack faith and don't accept


this is not mysterious

Do you think faith is a good thing? To believe something for which there is no evidence?

 

[Bungle_Bear]

you lack faith and don't accept


this is not mysterious

I disagree. The whole point of faith is that it relies (pretty much by definition) on mystery.

What is mysterious, though, is your failure to acknowledge that the "evidence" you have provided has been refuted several times.

 

[JohnEmmett]

the "evidence" you have provided has been refuted several times.

your not accepting … is not a refutation

 

[JohnEmmett]

Do you think faith is a good thing? To believe something for which there is no evidence?

yes faith is good


faith itself is evidence

 

[JohnEmmett]

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Hebrews 11:1

 

[Bungle_Bear]

your not accepting … is not a refutation

Indeed. The refutation was in demonstrating how the evidence was not actually evidence. Your non-acceptance of that refutation does not nullify it.

 

[JohnEmmett]

The refutation was in demonstrating how the evidence was not actually evidence.

how would you demonstrate this?


being a skeptic means you're going to be skeptical

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Hebrews 11:1

In other words, it is insubstantial - like things hoped for and things not seen.

It's bouncy ('hope springs eternal') but invisible...

The absence of substance means no semblance of existence.