Talk:Hinduism and creationism/Arch1

message: In terms of ISKCONs views in regards to evolution see the following links:
* Life Comes from Life - written by A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada (founder of ISKCON).
* A selection of quotes and small essays - mostly by Bhaktivedanta Swami
I'm assuming they'll be useful for referencing etc..., and as many are by Iskcon's own founder you can be sure they represent the canonical Hare Krishna viewpoint. Regards, Gouranga(UK) 23:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: ISKCON Links

message: My reasoning:
*If a religion has a Creation myth, it ought to be an article in Wikipedia, and it should be a part of the Creationism group of articles
*Although a "branch" of Hinduism pushed the California issue, that does not preclude the fact that Hindus have a creation myth.  The US branches of Christianity are much more intolerant of Evolution than European branches, but it's a part of the whole Creationism story.
*Hinduism is one of the larger religions in the world, and by that alone, it should be a part of the Creationism, to show the breadth of the creation myth amongst the worlds religions.  
That's it for now.  Orangemarlin 22:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  No on AFD 

message: Thats what i think of all this Hindu creationism business... ISK0N isnt even viewed as Hindu by many AND it certainly isnt the dominant form of Hinduism in West. अमेय आर्यन DaBrood© 22:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps the word "creationism" or "Creationist" is derogatory in your eyes? I hope to understand what the problem is here. If there is a tiny sect of some religion, it is still a part. It does NOT imply that all Hindus are creationists, whatever that means to you. It is like an article on red cars does not imply that all cars are red. Even if only 0.001% of the cars are red, the article is not about the 99.999% of the cars that are not red NOR is it implying that they are. You see my source of difficulty and confusion over this?--Filll 01:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

text: As I have explained repeatedly here, there was more content but it was removed. I think it might have been offensive I am not sure so I have to wait until I can understand exactly what kind of hornet's nest this is. If one looks for "hindu creationism" on google, one gets over 1000 hits and not all ISKCON. --Filll 01:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I apologize if I judged too early based on the current version. Can you please point me to the relevant archived version so that I can educate myself on the topic ? I am new to "Hindu creationism" but very well versed and interested in both evolutionary science and the whole young-earth creationism/ID nonsense. Abecedare 02:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

text:  Thanks. I went back and read the "original" version. Personally I didn't find anything it said offensive, but its surmise of a conflict between Hinduism (either theology or practice) and evolution were incorrect IMO. That is not to say that Hinduism preaches evolution (although another fringe group will argue even this POV). Rather one could consider Hinduism (along with Buddhism and the likes) to be an exemplar of Gould's NOMA doctrine. Abecedare 04:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Still, no valid reason has been given for keeping this article. This article can safely be moved to ISKCON creationism. Accounts for Hindu myths of creation have already been dealt with in  Creation_within_belief_systems#Hindu.nids(♂) 17:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I have a suggestion. lets move this article to ISKCON creationism. You collect evidence of creationist beleifs in Hindu scriptures. I have already provided one link to you. We can ofcourse have an article titled, Creationist beleifs in Hindu scriptures or something like that which discusses the verses implying creationist myths.nids(♂) 18:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neologism 

message: The new article title (Hindus who are creationists) sucks hard. I don't know why the old one was controversial, but this one needs to be changed immediately. If "Hindu creationism" was controversial because it implies that there is actually something called that, I would suggest "Hinduism and creationism" which emphasizes that they are two seperate ideas. If you're looking for something more similar to this but actually in line with our article naming policies, it would be "Creationist Hindus." Recury 21:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am standing on my head here trying avoid offending anyone. I do not care about the naming conventions. I am just trying to keep the article from being destroyed because it offends someone.--Filll 23:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I like the "Hinduism and creationism" title since then the article can discuss how the two isms interact, rather than have to discuss only the intersection of the two. Abecedare 23:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Don't be disgusted.  We weren't around when the Evolution article was first written, and I'm sure there were battles that were fought, and the final work is pretty fine.  It's happening here but this is a work in progress.  People are going to be offended by anything written on any topic.  I have a hard time reading the article Jews for Jesus, because I find the group to be disgusting, anti-Semetic, yada yada and yada yada.  But I read the article and I find it balanced and fair.  I could find a thousand articles which are just as hard to read.  Editors with more expertise are going to chime in, and provide better edits, and someday, it will be edited by a group of people who aren't you.  If it gets bad we can do a RFA or RFM, and work out the issues.  That being said, the title sucks really bad.  I think that "Hinduism and Creationism" makes sense.  I'm going to make the change, and hope I don't create a revert war out there!!!  Orangemarlin 00:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

text: You're kidding.  I didn't change anything.  Orangemarlin 01:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Hinduism and creationism is fine and it can discuss the relationship between the two. Nobleeagle  [TALK] [C] 04:30, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article title 

message: I know that it means something to Hindus, but that Swastika gives me shivers every time I look at it on this page.  Does it really have to be there?  Orangemarlin 00:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I just read up on the symbol.  It's like a christian cross I suppose.  Symbols should have no meaning, especially for a scientist, but some just do.  I'm all right with it, it's just a bit disturbing.  Orangemarlin 00:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Hitler seems to have permanently wrecked Hinduisms most holy symbol. Nobleeagle  [TALK] [C] 04:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Swastika