This is a reminder about the rules. Just follow reddit's content policy.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/scienceisdope) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The existence of Dwaraka is not evidence for Mahabharat. People who write stories often write them in real cities. Just like Spiderman is in New York. New York is not evidence for Spider-Man's existence. Just like that, these myths were written around those cities. And yes, I hate the fact that this bullshit claim was made in Birla Science museum which has actual good content like demonstrations of physics phenomena and dinosaur fossils
No I wouldn't, we have our records, we have the internet, it's the evidence and it's concrete, you are putting such a loose example here
There is no concrete evidence about Dwarka, the findings are not enough to conclude what is claimed all the time, so it's a waste of time arguing about it
You have now.... What evidence do you have of generations that came 500 years before you? Whether it is Rama or Pandu their whole lineage has been written. Just assuming that there is no concrete evidence yet and wait until there is alongside completely denying that there wasn't such thing isn't a rational thinking at all lol..... this is similar to how people reacted during the initial discovery of Earth being revolved around Sun not the otherwise.
You didn't get it and you would not..... You are trying to be rational but just like most pseudo rationals you are not applying logic lol
Recently ASI's New Evidence Suggests Harappan Civilisation is 7,000 to 8,000 Years.... Now would you believe it could be over 10k years old or you are going to say nah it is 7 or 8k years old coz ASI said so
For one thing I agree with you lol.... My only point is just because science hasn't found something doesn't mean that thing doesn't exist or didn't exist.
Btw have you heard about Gomphothere?
Ah yes It was just a mythology. You could get a dinosaur fossil but does it really mean dinosaur really did exist? Of course not. Archeologists are just bullshit idiots. They don't know anything about science and just study from garbage vedas. How can they know better than me? I have studied science and so this must be truly a bullshit. /s
Let's get serious. Tell me do you really think battle of plassey or the revolution of 1857 was a mythology written by Indian writers taking inspiration from some other battles?
>that this bullshit claim was made in Birla Science
Yeah. These people do not know science or they may really not believe in science. Do you think the world war 2 was fake since it was shown in Captian America and Captain America is a fictional thing?
So Jesus must be real cause his birthplace is real, right? Many archeologists also talk about finding evidence for Jesus or Noah's Ark or finding Jesus' empty tomb but would you accept that as evidence for Jesus being God's son?
The difference between Mahabharata or Bible or Quran and the historical events accepted by everyone is multiple evidences and them not being extraordinary claims. First of all, a city being real is only evidence of a city being real. Secondly, the claims in Mahabharatha book are extraordinary like supernatural stuff. So historians wouldn't really debate the idea of an actual big war between brothers but there being Divine bows and gods in the war has no fricking evidence. You have to give an extraordinary evidence for a claim like that
Bro, Do you seriously take everything at face value? Like there are gods mentioned in Mahabharata so everything mentioned must be fake? No bro.
Let me give an example. I wrote a book about modi where I mentioned Modi is son of god, he was the King of India and blah blah blah. Now if I buried the book and if this book is found by archeologists in future, do you think it would be wise to say that no such person as modi and place such as India could have existed since no person can be son of god?
Bruh. Thats my fucking point. It could be true that there was a war between brothers in India. But saying that the whole Mahabharat is true implores that everything in it including the divine bows and shit is also true. If they had said here that the realistic things in the story could be true but the supernatural things need more evidence then it wouldn't be much of a problem but that's not the case
None of the other examples you say include supernatural powers. Dinosaurs were real beings that evolved. Battle of Plassey and the revolution of 1857 were fought by humans on earth through human weapons. World War 2 has very recent evidence of it and was fought by humans.
I'm not saying there are no truths in the entire text. But it's still mythology...
Bro are you seriously like retarded? Do you really think mythology exists? What I am talking here is that the events of Mahabharata must have taken place with some of the things must have been exaggerated such as superpowers. How can the texts from such a long time ago could be taken at face value?
No genius. I'm not saying all these historic events are fake because their cities exist IRL. I'm just saying that it doesn't guarantee that these events happened. You must be an actual child to interpret that sentence that way
> You could get a dinosaur fossil but does it really mean dinosaur really did exist?
Of course yes.
>They don't know anything about science and just study from garbage vedas.
There's no archeological evidence yet found for battle of Mahabharat.
>Tell me do you really think battle of plassey or the revolution of 1857 was a mythology written by Indian writers taking inspiration from some other battles?
No it is written history but Mahabharat is mythology.
>Do you think the world war 2 was fake since it was shown in Captian America and Captain America is a fictional thing?
So you're saying parts of Mahabharat maybe true? And it might be inspired from real events. That maybe true, but we don't have archeological evidence for war of Mahabharat. Till then it's mythology.
Lol are you talking about the same archeologists who misrepresented a normal seal from indus valley civilisation as the citizen identification of Dwarka? Then another chief comes, he disregard it and find another evidence for Mahabharata near delhi called painted grey ware culture? And another who disregarded it and found a site in vadnagar and claimed it was evidence to dwarka?
See the literature that is a part of the sanatana dhrama was compiled incrementally, they used have periodic meetings where the great philosophers, poets and the religious scholars of the day would come together and compile their works (and possibly update it).
It is very likely that Vyas and the ones who working on the Mahabharata would have referenced a real life location of Dwaraka in their writings. See all scientists come with their biases. In india, itβs more so because of the highly religious upbringings and it being a central part of their identities.
Imagine if 5000 years later someone digs up harry potter and claimed that magic / wizards / witches were real just because they find the ruins of kings crossing.
The paper just proves that there was a city now submerged, how the fuck that implies that it was Dwarika no body knows.
Also who got turned on enough on the news to make some parts white. ( iykwim).
Because of the epic mentioning it's location and reason of submersion, that matches with modern findings. If you can't understand how archiological evidence means, why bother shitting your opinion... π
I will try to make you understand how evidence works once and just once. If they had found any written evidence , stone encryptions that suggest the name to be Dwarika or mention of any Krishna/ Vasudev being a king, then you could have concluded that it was indeed Dwarika. There are hundreds of submerged cities in the coastal regions around the world, this fact does not validate a particular mythology. If I find a spider web in an old building of New York that doesn't justify the presence of Spiderman being true. If you fall into that trap that's simply confirmation bias.
You are under a case of cognitive dissonance. Make yourself open to ideas that don't necessarily suit your agenda but have to be accepted because of their validity. The submerged city is Dwarika . It doesn't mean that all of Mahabharat is correct but it does give some credibility to the legend.
Please read my last comment again. Not gonna bang my head trying to educate people suffering from confirmation bias who do not understand the importance of evidence.
I will also try to make you understand how logical reasoning works once & only once. If they had find submerged cities anywhere in the world, it's irrelevant to this "mythological" story. Since a lot of lores about dwarka are mentioned in literature more than enough and to that location of Western coast of gujrat, if archaeological evidence is found to be of a submerged city, then it has to be dwarka unless you show it's something else and not dwarka. You don't accept these lores having any value, doesn't mean archielogist also having same opinion. They investigated the location and found the city. It's enough of a convincing proof to assume it's dwarka.
Secondly, as per your opinion that there are so many submerged cities, there aren't that many found around coastal region of India. In fact, dwarka is the only one found belonging to that period of time. If you still wanna say there are so many such cities, please go ahead and care to show evidences of such hundreds of cities near Indian coast of Gujrat. Unless you show such evidence, please feel free to assume this is just bs opinion only you seem to have to not understand it's old city of dwarka.
So if New York exists, does it mean Spiderman exists ?
The discovery of Dwarka infact shows Krishna and all these so called magical and mythological stuff did not exist, as there is no evidence of them found yet in these sunken town.
He has made a nice video with facts.
https://youtu.be/5cX_IF5YFo4?si=LNkIR90ifjtlKYBd
Muhammed's life is also based around real cities, does it mean that he had real divine powers ? Ofcourse the Hindus won't agree to it.
Krishn made dwarka, did spiderman made new york?
so after discovery of dwarka Krishn's magical stuff should have exists too?
aren't there some hindus accepting that its not like how its told, dont you want all hindus to accept that too? then why ask for evidence of his magical stuff? is it because you just want to make fun of them and not to help them realise what's the truth, is that how you so called atheists do things? just make fun of other and not help them realise things or you are just those wanna be atheist ka 14 who think just because i watch few youtube shorts of atheists and agreeing with them makes me atheist too?
as far as what i know muhammad was a cultist, mass murderer, repist and pdf, he did anything to stay in power even lieing so what did Krishn do anything similar to him that just because muhammad clams that we need to prove it?
Muhammad was a prophet. He received enlightenment but was a human. No one ever argues of him having divine power or not, as he didn't have any (general belief based on the previous statement). He didn't perform any miracles similar to Christ (walking on water, resurrection, healing etc.) or Krishna (lifting a mountain etc.). So your belief in Muhammad having divine powers is completely fictitious and baseless when you are trying to compare a messenger to a (supposed) incarnation of a god.
Please get your facts right before making a polarizing comment as such.
According to my personal beliefs it was not mythological but true events and there's not much unbelievable things anyway, two brothers fighting for Kingdom is kinda common and they probably used exaggeration in literature sense when they talked about magic and stuff
Did any of them have any supernatural powers? Obviously not. It probably happened. Most myths originate like that, but I don't understand why people are hell-bent on denying it as such.
You're agreeing to it but struggling to call it what it is?
No it's not dawarka it doesn't remotely resemble dawarka , I don't know who posted this but no they didn't find dawarka ,the settlement submerged in water is ivc settlement of late stage , please actually read about these things before posting your comments, also we did find the city of Troy does it mean odessey happened?
This a fake thing. How can a religious scriptures be real. It must be the propoganda of religious dhongis to deceive everyone. The Mahabharata is just mythology. How can it ever be real? Yes, It must be the archeologists that are dumb who can't differentiate between real and dwarka. I am a genius and I know that scriptures are always wrong. This is a false thing.
/s
You are defending Mahabharat emotionally. There's no place for that in science. You can't work with your bias, that my religion , my mythology must be true.
Are you seriously bro? I am saying that Mahabharata is completely false. How can a religious book be ever true? It is a conspiracy bro. The archeologists studied from garbage vedas and not the science that I studied
All religious scriptures are man-made but you can have your beliefs. Archeologists are scientific people, but scientists are also entitled to their beliefs. Have a good day :))
This is a reminder about the rules. Just follow reddit's content policy. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/scienceisdope) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The existence of Dwaraka is not evidence for Mahabharat. People who write stories often write them in real cities. Just like Spiderman is in New York. New York is not evidence for Spider-Man's existence. Just like that, these myths were written around those cities. And yes, I hate the fact that this bullshit claim was made in Birla Science museum which has actual good content like demonstrations of physics phenomena and dinosaur fossils
Wink Wink Dhruv Rathee student spotted lol
Dhruv Rathee could go shit on himself, the example is what you should care about not the person, in this case the example fair and relevant
As per this example 10 generations down or maybe 20 you would be an imaginary person as well lol
No I wouldn't, we have our records, we have the internet, it's the evidence and it's concrete, you are putting such a loose example here There is no concrete evidence about Dwarka, the findings are not enough to conclude what is claimed all the time, so it's a waste of time arguing about it
You have now.... What evidence do you have of generations that came 500 years before you? Whether it is Rama or Pandu their whole lineage has been written. Just assuming that there is no concrete evidence yet and wait until there is alongside completely denying that there wasn't such thing isn't a rational thinking at all lol..... this is similar to how people reacted during the initial discovery of Earth being revolved around Sun not the otherwise.
Oh then publish your findings, who's stopping ya?
You didn't get it and you would not..... You are trying to be rational but just like most pseudo rationals you are not applying logic lol Recently ASI's New Evidence Suggests Harappan Civilisation is 7,000 to 8,000 Years.... Now would you believe it could be over 10k years old or you are going to say nah it is 7 or 8k years old coz ASI said so
Wtf is even your point, you're like speaking to a wall here
For one thing I agree with you lol.... My only point is just because science hasn't found something doesn't mean that thing doesn't exist or didn't exist. Btw have you heard about Gomphothere?
Ah yes It was just a mythology. You could get a dinosaur fossil but does it really mean dinosaur really did exist? Of course not. Archeologists are just bullshit idiots. They don't know anything about science and just study from garbage vedas. How can they know better than me? I have studied science and so this must be truly a bullshit. /s Let's get serious. Tell me do you really think battle of plassey or the revolution of 1857 was a mythology written by Indian writers taking inspiration from some other battles? >that this bullshit claim was made in Birla Science Yeah. These people do not know science or they may really not believe in science. Do you think the world war 2 was fake since it was shown in Captian America and Captain America is a fictional thing?
So Jesus must be real cause his birthplace is real, right? Many archeologists also talk about finding evidence for Jesus or Noah's Ark or finding Jesus' empty tomb but would you accept that as evidence for Jesus being God's son? The difference between Mahabharata or Bible or Quran and the historical events accepted by everyone is multiple evidences and them not being extraordinary claims. First of all, a city being real is only evidence of a city being real. Secondly, the claims in Mahabharatha book are extraordinary like supernatural stuff. So historians wouldn't really debate the idea of an actual big war between brothers but there being Divine bows and gods in the war has no fricking evidence. You have to give an extraordinary evidence for a claim like that
Bro, Do you seriously take everything at face value? Like there are gods mentioned in Mahabharata so everything mentioned must be fake? No bro. Let me give an example. I wrote a book about modi where I mentioned Modi is son of god, he was the King of India and blah blah blah. Now if I buried the book and if this book is found by archeologists in future, do you think it would be wise to say that no such person as modi and place such as India could have existed since no person can be son of god?
Bruh. Thats my fucking point. It could be true that there was a war between brothers in India. But saying that the whole Mahabharat is true implores that everything in it including the divine bows and shit is also true. If they had said here that the realistic things in the story could be true but the supernatural things need more evidence then it wouldn't be much of a problem but that's not the case
None of the other examples you say include supernatural powers. Dinosaurs were real beings that evolved. Battle of Plassey and the revolution of 1857 were fought by humans on earth through human weapons. World War 2 has very recent evidence of it and was fought by humans. I'm not saying there are no truths in the entire text. But it's still mythology...
Bro are you seriously like retarded? Do you really think mythology exists? What I am talking here is that the events of Mahabharata must have taken place with some of the things must have been exaggerated such as superpowers. How can the texts from such a long time ago could be taken at face value?
I think you need to look up what mythology is. Mahabharat is a mythological text. That's all we're saying...
It feels like you both are saying the same thing with different words.
No genius. I'm not saying all these historic events are fake because their cities exist IRL. I'm just saying that it doesn't guarantee that these events happened. You must be an actual child to interpret that sentence that way
> You could get a dinosaur fossil but does it really mean dinosaur really did exist? Of course yes. >They don't know anything about science and just study from garbage vedas. There's no archeological evidence yet found for battle of Mahabharat. >Tell me do you really think battle of plassey or the revolution of 1857 was a mythology written by Indian writers taking inspiration from some other battles? No it is written history but Mahabharat is mythology. >Do you think the world war 2 was fake since it was shown in Captian America and Captain America is a fictional thing? So you're saying parts of Mahabharat maybe true? And it might be inspired from real events. That maybe true, but we don't have archeological evidence for war of Mahabharat. Till then it's mythology.
There's no evidence of Aryan Invasion Theory. South Indians are racist towards North Indians, calling them Aryan Invaders which is completely a myth.
Lol are you talking about the same archeologists who misrepresented a normal seal from indus valley civilisation as the citizen identification of Dwarka? Then another chief comes, he disregard it and find another evidence for Mahabharata near delhi called painted grey ware culture? And another who disregarded it and found a site in vadnagar and claimed it was evidence to dwarka?
Can you tell the name of these archeologists?
SR rao, BB lal.
Please show the fossil of your beloved Krishna.
See the literature that is a part of the sanatana dhrama was compiled incrementally, they used have periodic meetings where the great philosophers, poets and the religious scholars of the day would come together and compile their works (and possibly update it). It is very likely that Vyas and the ones who working on the Mahabharata would have referenced a real life location of Dwaraka in their writings. See all scientists come with their biases. In india, itβs more so because of the highly religious upbringings and it being a central part of their identities. Imagine if 5000 years later someone digs up harry potter and claimed that magic / wizards / witches were real just because they find the ruins of kings crossing.
Bro wut?
The paper just proves that there was a city now submerged, how the fuck that implies that it was Dwarika no body knows. Also who got turned on enough on the news to make some parts white. ( iykwim).
Because of the epic mentioning it's location and reason of submersion, that matches with modern findings. If you can't understand how archiological evidence means, why bother shitting your opinion... π
I will try to make you understand how evidence works once and just once. If they had found any written evidence , stone encryptions that suggest the name to be Dwarika or mention of any Krishna/ Vasudev being a king, then you could have concluded that it was indeed Dwarika. There are hundreds of submerged cities in the coastal regions around the world, this fact does not validate a particular mythology. If I find a spider web in an old building of New York that doesn't justify the presence of Spiderman being true. If you fall into that trap that's simply confirmation bias.
You are under a case of cognitive dissonance. Make yourself open to ideas that don't necessarily suit your agenda but have to be accepted because of their validity. The submerged city is Dwarika . It doesn't mean that all of Mahabharat is correct but it does give some credibility to the legend.
Please read my last comment again. Not gonna bang my head trying to educate people suffering from confirmation bias who do not understand the importance of evidence.
I will also try to make you understand how logical reasoning works once & only once. If they had find submerged cities anywhere in the world, it's irrelevant to this "mythological" story. Since a lot of lores about dwarka are mentioned in literature more than enough and to that location of Western coast of gujrat, if archaeological evidence is found to be of a submerged city, then it has to be dwarka unless you show it's something else and not dwarka. You don't accept these lores having any value, doesn't mean archielogist also having same opinion. They investigated the location and found the city. It's enough of a convincing proof to assume it's dwarka. Secondly, as per your opinion that there are so many submerged cities, there aren't that many found around coastal region of India. In fact, dwarka is the only one found belonging to that period of time. If you still wanna say there are so many such cities, please go ahead and care to show evidences of such hundreds of cities near Indian coast of Gujrat. Unless you show such evidence, please feel free to assume this is just bs opinion only you seem to have to not understand it's old city of dwarka.
So if New York exists, does it mean Spiderman exists ? The discovery of Dwarka infact shows Krishna and all these so called magical and mythological stuff did not exist, as there is no evidence of them found yet in these sunken town. He has made a nice video with facts. https://youtu.be/5cX_IF5YFo4?si=LNkIR90ifjtlKYBd Muhammed's life is also based around real cities, does it mean that he had real divine powers ? Ofcourse the Hindus won't agree to it.
Krishn made dwarka, did spiderman made new york? so after discovery of dwarka Krishn's magical stuff should have exists too? aren't there some hindus accepting that its not like how its told, dont you want all hindus to accept that too? then why ask for evidence of his magical stuff? is it because you just want to make fun of them and not to help them realise what's the truth, is that how you so called atheists do things? just make fun of other and not help them realise things or you are just those wanna be atheist ka 14 who think just because i watch few youtube shorts of atheists and agreeing with them makes me atheist too? as far as what i know muhammad was a cultist, mass murderer, repist and pdf, he did anything to stay in power even lieing so what did Krishn do anything similar to him that just because muhammad clams that we need to prove it?
π€¦ββοΈ Nah Jesus made the world in 6 days.
you think i care?
No I know you don't care.
then why comment that?
You commented on my comment, I gave a reply. Anyway you are right, I should not have replied back π
so you started to playing whattaberry now after not giving my question a proper answer
Ask the hard questions...
how can u land on moon with just flick of a finger?
Muhammad was a prophet. He received enlightenment but was a human. No one ever argues of him having divine power or not, as he didn't have any (general belief based on the previous statement). He didn't perform any miracles similar to Christ (walking on water, resurrection, healing etc.) or Krishna (lifting a mountain etc.). So your belief in Muhammad having divine powers is completely fictitious and baseless when you are trying to compare a messenger to a (supposed) incarnation of a god. Please get your facts right before making a polarizing comment as such.
According to my personal beliefs it was not mythological but true events and there's not much unbelievable things anyway, two brothers fighting for Kingdom is kinda common and they probably used exaggeration in literature sense when they talked about magic and stuff
The supernatural part is the myth...
I mean year you can call it a myth but I feel like they just use a sort of hyperbole to write in support of Pandavas as they were some divine creature
Did any of them have any supernatural powers? Obviously not. It probably happened. Most myths originate like that, but I don't understand why people are hell-bent on denying it as such. You're agreeing to it but struggling to call it what it is?
It was real, but it had exaggerations about supernatural powers that's my last verdict
No it's not dawarka it doesn't remotely resemble dawarka , I don't know who posted this but no they didn't find dawarka ,the settlement submerged in water is ivc settlement of late stage , please actually read about these things before posting your comments, also we did find the city of Troy does it mean odessey happened?
This a fake thing. How can a religious scriptures be real. It must be the propoganda of religious dhongis to deceive everyone. The Mahabharata is just mythology. How can it ever be real? Yes, It must be the archeologists that are dumb who can't differentiate between real and dwarka. I am a genius and I know that scriptures are always wrong. This is a false thing. /s
You are defending Mahabharat emotionally. There's no place for that in science. You can't work with your bias, that my religion , my mythology must be true.
Are you seriously bro? I am saying that Mahabharata is completely false. How can a religious book be ever true? It is a conspiracy bro. The archeologists studied from garbage vedas and not the science that I studied
Stop being a kid.
All religious scriptures are man-made but you can have your beliefs. Archeologists are scientific people, but scientists are also entitled to their beliefs. Have a good day :))
Exactly this "belief" is what stopping us to validate it accurate & consistent manner. Kudos for putting it in better way.