It's not just another name for that, though. That's in a very, very wrong location to be the source of Atlantis myths. If Atlantis had a real basis, which it doesn't, it would probably be the pre-glacial-retreat land off the coast of England like Doggerland or off the west coast of Ireland.
The relevant (unvalidated) theory is that Atlantis was an empire that covered north western Africa (Morocco, sharah, etc) - at least, and which had a port city around where Tangier is today, and a capital city at the richat structure (pre-younger dryas).
The theory comes with several hypotheses which have not been validated or invalidated yet. to invalidate the theory would require significant (strategically chosen) archaeological surveys of the Sahara and the richat structure. The theory is falsifiable, and has not been falsified yet. That doesn't make the theory of Atlantis true, it just makes it undetermined.
I would say Atlantis is like a slightly more falsifiable and slightly more plaudible version of Russell's Teapot. We have zero reason to think Atlantis existed and zero indications of it. Is it possible that there was an advanced civilization that somehow left virtually zero evidence? Yes, but why? There are plenty of much less advanced civilizations which left plenty of trace and while we cannot know exactly how many civilizations left no trace an advanced civilization tends to leave a lot of traces. And why would Plato know of it?
"I would say Atlantis is like a slightly more falsifiable and slightly more plaudible version of Russell's Teapot."
Falsifying a vague hand-wavy theory of Atlantis, I agree with you. But the specific theory that Richat structure was the home of a large city 13,000 years ago that was destroyed in a flood? I wholeheartedly disagree. It's falsifiable and probably could be done with less than 1/100th the archeological investment that's been made into Egypt.
"Is it possible that there was an advanced civilization that somehow left virtually zero evidence? Yes, but why?"
Several cataclysmic meteorite strikes that ended the ice age, triggered younger dryas, caused biblical flooding, rapid environmental change, etc.
I don't think the geological evidence of this is being refuted, just the consequences of it on our understanding of human civilizational history.
1. Cataclysmic meteor strikes ending the ice age? Aren't they more likely to prolong it?
2. Is there any evidence of either glaciation or flooding at the Richat structure?
3. If no on 2, then why should their civilization leave virtually zero evidence, even if it collapsed? Macchu Pichu is still there. Teotihuacan is still there. The Nasca Lines are still there. Chan Chan is still there. The Minoan ruins are still there. If this was just an abrupt collapse. why should it leave no trace?
1. Yes. I don't know, but there is lots of geological evidence that 12-13,000 years ago there were several cataclysmic meteor strikes, and the earths temperature swung up and down wildly, eventually settling at a much higher temperature (ending the ice age). I am pretty sure this is accepted by the geological community.
2. There is evidence of tremendous flooding, yes. You can actually see it on google earth yourself if you go look...
3. The theory assumes there was massive flooding, which is why we have to look harder for evidence (careful subsurface excavation) compared to sites like Macchu Pichu. Also Macchu Pichu is 600 years old, and the theory of the Richat structure housing a city assumes it was destroyed 12,900+ years ago.
4. Keep in mind that it's widely accepted that 13k years ago the Sahara was lush grasslands and forests.
I think there is consensus that Doggerland was wiped out by a massive tidal wave generated by the Storegga event. This feels like it deserves mention in any arrogant certaintist article like the one above.
The article would be good if it asserted "we don't know".
I had never even heard of this before this comment. I have now learned it's a very unique geological formation in the Sahara consisting of concentric rings of raised stone. It appears to be entirely natural and the scientific consensus is that no city has ever existed on the site nor did human artifice have anything to do with its creation.
For someone to post a comment like "I thought everyone knew" is so egregiously deceptive and misleading that the comment should be flagged. It's tantamount to posting "I thought everyone knew area 51 recovered aliens from Roswell." It's a conspiracy theory masquerading as an ordinary remark.
Worse, it's one that uses a psychological trick to dodge the burden of proof, because "everybody knows", so if you ask for evidence, you're admitting you're not among the "knowing ones". "Everyone knows" is not evidence.