Talk:Hindu atheism

message: Can anybody please put some light on this? For example, it was a crime punishable by death in ancient Greece. Thanks in advance.
122.173.184.220 (talk) 16:40, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Treatement of Atheists in Hinduism

message: What is this article supposed to be about? It consists of "Astika", and other unrelated matter. If you could name it "Nidish Singhal, an atheist, but a Hindu", it would be more apt. :) Babub→Talk 15:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Astika just meant belief in doctrine of vedas and not in the beleif of existence of creationist God. Samkhya and purva Mimamsa were very clear in this respect. Even if you reject Nastika school of thoughts out of hinduism, you will have to accept that Shat Astik darshan had atheistic views.--nids(♂) 15:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you think this needs a new article? I fell this has to be merged or deleted. All this is anyway covered in Hindu philosophy. But, perhaps you could do something with the Indian philosophy article? Babub→Talk 15:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Definately not. But i found a stiff resistance, when i tried to include even a atheist can be a hindu in the Hinduism and related article.--nids(♂) 15:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

text: But i think as of now, this article has enough ammo to stand on its own and a deletion would not be required. I would humbly request you to support the inclusion of even a atheist can be a hindu in hinduism article and redirect here for details.--nids(♂) 15:15, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indian philosophy deals with some of the philosophies which are obviously not Hindu, under any definition. Like Ahmadi or Sufi movement. While Lokayakta is included in Hindu philosophies under many definitions. (Unorthodox and Nastika)--nids(♂) 15:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What?

message: If "noone" has problems with the title, I'm going to withdraw the AfD nom. Babub→Talk 03:11, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title 

message: Naastika means veda-rejecting hindu traditions; while aastika means veda-adhering hindu traditions.
Schools based on purva mimaamsa and sankhya philosophy were atheistic; yet adhered to vedas.
Atheistic aastika traditions: samkhya; yoga(partly); mimaamsa
Theistic naastika traditions: sikhism; veersaivism/lingayaatism; ayyavazhism
Hope this helps in cleaning up this section Leafy 22:06, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As for references or such - first off i think this section needs a clean up... Leafy 22:08, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup. I know that. and that is what is precisely written in this article.nids(♂) 22:16, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You would also like to refer to the Afd filed for the article. some users were contesting that Mimamsaks were theistic. I know they are atheistic, but it would be nice if you can arrange for some better references. Thank you.nids(♂) 22:18, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Ofcourse. Do whenever you get time. nids(♂) 08:02, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nids, you have not mentioned Vaisesika along with the other darshanas, though it got currupted later, the original thought did not require a creationist God, yet it was astik. It should be clearly understood here that we are Astika (believing in the wisdom of Vedas) Nireeshwarvadis and not secular atheists. Aupmanyav 15:37, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Aupmanyav, i just have a basic knowledge about the astika darshans. So basically, I have just written a stub. I dont know if Vaisesika was atheistic, but please add it if you are sure about the info. I dont think anyone would fight here to produce a source for it, but it'd be great if you can procure one. Thnx. nids(♂) 17:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  'naastika' doesn't mean atheist 

message: Some morons think being polytheistic or henotheistic or deistic or mahahajhdhdhdjhssktheistic is the same as being atheistic. Nothing I can do to help them 
. Babub→Talk 05:33, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Its not really your prob if you fail to understand what atheism means in the first place. Leafy 12:46, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I understand it very well: Belief in the non-existence of god(s). Babub→Talk 13:04, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Its disbelief in existence of a god i.e, absolute god/s. Mimamsa's devaas aren't gods - they're positions that one ascends to through karma according to my poor memory. Leafy 17:01, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Babub, why are you distorting facts and changing Hindu to Indian philosophy everywhere. Tomorrow, you will say that Lingayats are not Hindus.nids(♂) 14:01, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Maybe, you would like to work on Indian philosophy section and even expand Ahmadi and Sufi parts.nids(♂) 14:04, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Leafy, all Darshanas did require no Gods, and Advaita is not Sankara's theory. There is pre-Sankara advaita also. There are numerous instances when upanishads accept that there is nothing other than 'Brahman', and worship of Gods is erroronous; that leaves no space for a creationist God. Aupmanyav 15:44, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some people! 

message: Since i dont have the requisite knowledge on the subject, i request other editors to introduce the section of Atheism as present in Yoga philosophy.nids(♂) 10:46, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yoga section 

message: I know that this is a good debating point, but it doesn't make sense to call him an atheist because of an outburst like that. My granny "turned atheist" after one of my uncles drowned in the temple tank. She stayed away from Him for 15 days and then apparently God called her back. It does not make sense to include people who just happen to be angry at God because of their misfortunes among those who adopt atheism as a philosophical position. — Ravikiran 11:01, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Should this be removed. I dont think he said because he was angry. Many of the swayamsevaks are atheists too.nids(♂) 11:08, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bal Thakeray the atheist? 

message: i have removed 
:Madhava Acharya himself was one of the founding fathers of the Hindu Empire of Vijayanagar, fought against Islamic domination and proclaimed himself as an avatara of Vishnu. 
and other unsourced additions to the article.nids(♂) 09:35, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  madhav acharya as avatar 

message: Materialism has been around in India for at least 2600 years and deserves special mention in this article. The Charvakas were well known and prominent enough to deserve a mention in a number of popular texts. Other than Charvakas, we also had people like Ajita Keshakambalin who denied the existence of soul, rebirth, etc., but unlike the Charvakas did not recommend losing moral values. 
Shvushvu 16:41, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are free to add anything in the article. Just remember that we have a separate article on Charvaka, and this article should just be a synopsis on the different atheistic viewpoints present in the Hinduism. You can o'course expand the main charvaka article anytime. Thanks.nids(♂) 17:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added Ajita Kesakambali to the See Also section until he can be more tightly integrated into the article. — coelacan talk — 19:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Materialism/Charvaka 

message: I note the absence of an "Atheism in Buddhism" page --both are, doubtless, necessary.
The Pali Canon contains quite a lot of our evidence for atheistic schools of thought among ancient "Hindus" (a problematic term, as everyone knows) --viz., evidence that orthodox (Hindu) sources are not prone to record.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.52.148.34 (talk) 15:42, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Separate Atheism in Buddhism page? 

message: The section on "Prominent Atheists" adds no value to the article. It needs to be deleted
sandy (talk) 08:21, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: i seem to agree with you. It seems to fit well in Atheism in India, which has such a list already. --Docku: What's up? 17:33, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: i also feel that only those who identified themselves as a hindu and atheist should be added like sawarkar. But then people like Kumarila Bhatta and Kapila and many will be left as in their time there was nothing like hinduism the religion . Pratpandey13 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 15:13, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Prominent Atheists- Useless section

message: Maybe it's better Hindu Atheism? --Mladifilozof (talk) 12:41, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  rename 

message: The title "Atheism in Hinduism" implies Buddhism is a Hindu tradition, a claim which almost all Buddhist would disagree with. Can we rectify this problem by renaming the title of this page to "Atheism in Indian philosophy" or something? Not doing so and keeping the same title seems like its implying Buddhism is a Hindu tradition. 76.115.15.97 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 21:58, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not think so, as many jain and buddhist in India may say they are hindu but not all say that. It is very complex issue as even Bon is considered Buddhism but certainly it is not orthodox Buddhism.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pratpandey13 (talk • contribs) 14:38, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Buddhism and Jainism have their own articles on Atheism— God in Buddhism, God in Jainism both of which are a part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Atheism like this article. Therefore, we should consider removing content related to them from this article. However, Atheism in Hinduism requires an article of its own and hence the name and the scope of the article are well defined and need not be changed. CorrectKnowledge (talk) 03:01, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Buddhism and Jainism are viewed by Hindu scriptures as nastika schools. This fact needs to be stated. However, going in detail about atheism as Buddhism and Jainism is not needed. --Redtigerxyz  Talk  11:59, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I was thinking of removing the division of the article into Āstika and nāstika. A chronological arrangement in the following order— Vedas, Upanishads, Samkhya, Mimamsa, Ajivika, Cārvāka, Atheistic tendencies of Advaita (if I find content on this) and modern Hindu atheists would better show the development of Atheism in Hinduism. Whether a certain school believed in the testimony of the Vedas or not is a minor fact for this article and should be treated a such. CorrectKnowledge (talk) 02:36, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Buddhism is Hinduism? 

message: I have removed this statement from the article as I think it is problematic. Why would a Hindu call himself an "atheist" if he follows the same cultural and moral values as the religious Hindu? It does not make any sense, and the cited source is not by an expert and therefore not a reliable source. "They are unlike other Hindus in their religious outlook, but they share the same cultural and moral values." Source: Pandit, Bansi Explore Hinduism url=http://books.google.com/books?id=PT5h4IjBMk0C&pg=PA80 |year=2005 |publisher=Heart of Albion |isbn=978-1-872883-81-6 |page=80}} -Mohanbhan (talk) 10:35, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moral values of Hindu theists and atheists same? 

message: Nowhere in his essay has Bhagat Singh claimed to be an Hindu atheist. He was simply an atheist. That part should be edited out. Puravbhutta1996 (talk) 18:47, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not necessarily clear whether Singh is a Hindu atheist from the essay alone. But he is notable within the Hindu community and was involved in many groups. Additionally, his essay cites Hindu principles to the point where it is clear he has a grasp of them (even if he uses them in a rather atypical way). He comes from a family of Hindus and a Hindu background. I think that all points to that part staying, at least until more editors agree it should be removed. Bass77talkcontribs 07:30, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bhagat Singh