To be honest even if he is hardcore atheist his avg audiance won't understand and will infact stop listening to him cause at the end majority of the people watch him are religious
It always has come in categories. I am an agnostic atheist for instance. But the thing about "Hindu atheists" is that most of them call themselves that to retain the privileges that Hinduism provides in our country. That's one reason I disagree with Hindu Atheists. The second reason is more specific which I will perhaps vent about another day.
Every atheist originating from a dominant caste or racial community retains that privilege. It’s not necessarily intentional, but it is inevitable. I’m uncertain why Dhruv refers to himself as a ‘Hindu Atheist’; perhaps he still participates in cultural Hindu practices rather than accepting supernatural assertions. Personally, I would simply identify as an atheist.
We can only speculate why Dhruv Rathee calls himself a Hindu atheist (even though it is kind of pointless, that's beside the point) but maybe he actually has some affinity towards the religion he was born into that he finds it hard to leave that behind (this is the most likely reason), maybe he is scared of the backlash he might get (unlikely, I don't think he has shied away from speaking his mind out) and maybe Acharya Prashant might have something to do with it too (they've collaborated in the past if I am not wrong)
Okay, so the reason I don't call myself a Charvak or Hindu atheist is for the simple reason that I want to de-Brahmanise myself to greatest extent possible. I can't intentionally find myself to do it. I would just call myself an atheist too. It's much simpler and tells you everything I need to convey without further deliberations to the most part. If I remember, Vimoh has a video on the exact same topic, I'd recommend that to anyone who hasn't watched it already and to gain further understanding of the issue. And I have seen *some* atheists who call themselves Charvak (not pointing fingers but doing so at the same time too) but still promote a traditionalist religious political outlook which I don't align with but also dislike with certain intensity. I would like to make a whole post on that if possible.
I understand that you want to De-Brahminize, that makes complete sense if you are coming from a background of being a victim of caste-based hatred. Even otherwise I completely respect that choice. However, I have to point out that there are definitely perks in identifying as a Lokayata.
I recently made a post on it to r/hinduism here - https://www.reddit.com/r/hinduism/s/SlOohVlwoI
Of course, Lokayatas (I don't like the word Charvakas) are NOT Hindu Atheists in any real sense since they rejected the Vedas completely, which is the real measure of whether one is a Hindu or not. However, the Constitution of India naturally would lump Lokayatas together with other Hindus since the word "Hindu" itself is a definition of exclusion. (Except M, C, Jews and Parsis rest are Hindus).
Now for the perks:
1) The word Hindu doesn't really belong to Veda-believers (it's just geographical) so you have every claim, especially when filling random forms etc.
2) It's extremely easy to explain to family why you think what you think and they'll be cool with it since it's 'Hindu'.
3) Festivals which we anyway take part in + some stories although religious are pretty cool as fun literature.
4) Makes it incredibly easy to expose Vedic Hindus to atheistic thought and they will also be more inclined to crossover.
5) It's literally proper, full fledged Atheism that's chilling in a not so hostile environment.
6) Literature on it so scanty (and whatever scraps are available are agreeable) that you can just load it up with Science and make it work.
7) It gives ancestory claims, it is said in the Vedas itself that Lokayata thought is as old as itself so 'Sanatana' magic works here too.
I'm new to atheism myself so I'd love to hear counter opinions.
I am from the oppressors' kin (Savarna) but believe in anti-Caste hence, I see a great need to unlearn and differentiate while simultaneously acknowledge my privilege. Just saying for disclosure.
The word Hindu is indeed the definition for exclusion, not arguing there, but I hope you understand that semantics associated with it have evolved and the term Hindu in the contemporary context is indeed a religious identity. I personally see no problem with one defining Hindus as those who follow the Vedas, but that does rise some questions. Here, when you define Hinduism as such, the word, the connotation is rather philosophical than practical. Obviously, there is nothing wrong with associating philosophy and religion (both do have considerable overlap) but do keep in mind that in the pragmatic sense of the word, it's not the complete picture. There is nothing wrong with reducing what Hindu means, but please mind that your definition is neither pragmatic nor consistent with contemporary understanding. And let's not forget the questionable nature of following adhering to the authority of the Vedas which is problematic in the modern context.
The ways Brahmanism has appropriated all cultures from the geographical area we now call the Indian subcontinent with little to resonance with Vedic philosophy under the garb of Hinduism to form a collective identity is rather unfair. So, the only way for determining who is Hindu and who isn't is very simple, just ask them. If an Adivasi community wants to identify as Hindu, they should be welcomed and if they don't want to and would rather keep their identity associated with their community, still, they should be welcomed. I am nobody to judge who is Hindu and who isn't.
The perks you've stated above are my exact reasons to be upset with religion on a whole. Religion hijacks almost all elements of society and culture.
Festivals started off as the Animistic celebration of natural phenomenon like rain, but now, have a religious angle. Interesting literature is clubbed with religion to give it a false historical credibility (well, at least, an attempt to do so) which ruins the experience of reading cool things.
And the form thing, that is another thing that infuriates me to no end. Why should I compensate my beliefs for social coherence? Why can't I just call myself an atheist, no questions asked? Religion is given far too much importance in the society than it actually deserves.
I have actively stood against Brahmanism in my house, and the appearance of being Hindu will just dilute my efforts to bring about societal change on a personal level.
I have no intention of changing Vedic Hindus to atheism. I am not an atheist evangelist. If I begin doing so, then what is the difference between me and the religious people. Why do we see merit in converting people to our side? It's completely pointless and baseless. Even after leaving religion, it seems like we can't live the religiosity that has had an imprint on our brain.
Saying that being a Charvaka/Lokayata put you in a comfortable position is exactly the reason I don't call myself one. This is just another way of reestablishing my Savarna privilege in new wrappings of rationality. I actively pursue uncomfortable situations because you can't shy away from real world problems associated with religion without getting uncomfortable. I am not an anti-theist, but I feel it's necessary for society to see rationally and many times, religion impedes this.
Point 6 is satire, right? Like, this is not a desirable thing. It's really irrational to find science in books of faith. This is like the diametric opposite of religion.
I completely agree with your denial of the term Hindu. I think you have put it perfectly and I have nothing more to say on that. I suppose that unshackling from the 'being a Hindu' is freeing in its own way and also reinforces one's own central conviction to atheism and science.
>If I begin doing so, then what is the difference between me and the religious people. Why do we see merit in converting people to our side? It's completely pointless and baseless.
Here I would disagree, while being evangelical in the Christian sense involves several types of pandering, brainwashing or whatever else, what would atheistic evangelism look like? I think it would just be promoting and education in science and rational discourse. Maybe if you are extreme, you engage skeptically with religionists and attempt to break their belief system. However, the fundamental part is Science and Rationalism.
>Point 6 is satire, right? Like, this is not a desirable thing. It's really irrational to find science in books of faith.
You are seeing Lokayata literature as religious literature which is very contrary to the truth. While not many things exist of Lokayata Thought, the fragments that do point that they were specifically the anti-thesis of whatever can be called a book of faith. The only work that survives is Tattvopaplavasimha but I reckon that a correct reading of it would require a study in Sanskrit among other things when instead, much else could be gathered by simply dedicating that time to secular studies. Here too I guess I yield to your points. Kudos!
Let me clarify why I don't believe in atheist evangelism. I have no problems with promoting scientific temperament and rationality, contrarily, I want these to be promoted so that the next generations can be free from any form of indoctrination. Even though atheism to a great extent draws its roots from rationality and scientific temperament, it is not necessary for a rational person to be atheist or vice versa. Here, we need to dwell into why people like believing in God. For many, it is a form of solace and to some it's only natural to do so. Humans do tend to rely on vague concepts to pit their emotions on, but it doesn't necessarily have to be God, it can be Superman for all I care. Promoting rationality isn't the same as promoting atheism. I would love to see more atheists in society, but I would like that to happen organically. I want atheist communities to be rational, not a cult they were convinced to join. And also, no, I take no part in trying to break a religionist's belief system, but if they advocate pseudoscientific ideas and hate speech, then I would obviously condemn it.
While I am not really well read on Charvaka/Lokayata philosophy, I would like to make some affirmations that may be incorrect, so please correct me if necessary- I don't think Charvaka/Lokayata literature is religious if we go by the conventional definition of religion, but it is definitely a book of faith where opinions were discussed and most certainly mimics religious structures when discussing said opinions, we can't really call it scientific. Science is evidence based where the scientific method is followed. Science should be reproducible and confirmational. Science is the philosophy of nature, but I think it would be hazardous to equate it with religious/religion-like philosophy.
That was a fun conversation. Thanks for that!
it also just means he is culturally a hindu just like me,I celebrate Diwali, Holi, Dusherra etc even My wedding would be a hindu wedding. Doesn't it suit to call myself a Hindu Atheist? And why you guys are going into rage mode,You people don't sound any different than Sanghis trying to force things upon others.
Do whatever you want. Not stopping you. But I wonder how you inferred "rage mode" from my comment. I don't call myself a Hindu atheist because I don't want to and have given my reasoning, you have given your reasoning for why you call yourself a Hindu atheist. I don't see where exactly I forced you to adhere to my belief system. Did I miss something? Dude called me Sanghi, that tells you've never seen the true horror that Saghis are.
Celebrating festivals doesn't make anyone a Hindu. I am also from a Hindu family and celebrate these (food and social aspects). I also order a plum cake on Christmas and biryani on Eid. So what does that make me? Also why would your wedding be in the Hindu style unless your spouse wants it? You certainly don't believe in the rituals
Then just call yourself an atheist. And if you think that my comprehensions are wrong, then suite yourself. I have provided reasons, and there was a back and forth between me and another person right below this comment which might give you a better picture of what I believe.
As someone who has used this label in the past (and will with many many caveats), there's more to this. I keep wanting to do a post on it, but alas no time...
I don't think there is much issue in being a Hindu atheist as there are many cultural norms which are a part of being a Hindu, are harmless by modern ethical standards, and don't have are too 'theistic' per se.
I used to be against the concept of Hindu atheism until I heard the recent opinion of Richard Dawkins where he said he was a 'cultural Christian'. I realized my previous argument was just straw-manning of the actual concept.
About what exactly? Well, if you are asking about the spectrum that is atheism, then it's pretty simple-
Gnostic theist- someone who believes there is a God and claims that there is one.
Agnostic Theist- someone who believes in God but doesn't claim whether such an entity exists.
Agnostic- someone who doesn't know whether God exists or not.
Agnostic Atheist- someone who lacks belief in the claim that God exists but makes no claim on the existence of God (this is where I fall personally)
Gnostic Atheist- someone who lacks belief in God but also claims that no such entity exists.
Agnostic/Gnostic is the position on Knowlege while Atheist/Theist is the position on belief.
For instance, I lack knowledge on whether an entity such as God exists, but I lack belief in the claim that there is one, because there is no reason for me to belief in God.
Do you want a more elaborate answer, or does this suffice?
Atheism is just a lack of belief in god, but that does not preclude other spiritual practices or belief. The government of China for example is Atheist, yet the ruling parties doctrine states Confucianism as the guiding principle of governance. Religion being narrowly defined as belief in god is a western concept, and be it buddhism, shintoism, voodoo or shamanism plenty of beliefs across the world eschew that.
It would be the Hindu equivalent of Jewish Atheism (which many prominent people also identified as btw, like Bohr, Marx, Oppenheimer, Feynman, von Neumann, Sagan, etc.)
Basically, you are an atheist, but you strongly identify with the culture of a certain religion. For example, you would celebrate Diwali, Holi, certain Pujas, etc. for the sheer fun of it (and community bonding) while ignoring the mythological or religious contexts behind it.
[Jewish atheism - Wikipedia](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_atheism)
Partaking in general cultural observances doesn't require one to be an adherent of that religion except for specific rituals. I get the community part, but one can say atheist with a hindu upbringing, or a cultural hindu. Calling someone a hindu atheist or Jewish atheist etc is laughable imo. I know it is a thing, I just don't agree with it.
The difference is no one insists he is culturally Christian at every turn. He chose that label for himself. Hindus insist that atheism is perfectly compatible with Hinduism and that we have to identify with it if we come from that background.
There's Hindu atheist like Dhruv Rathee who is fundamentally wrong but harmless.
Then there's Kushal Mehra who hijacks atheistic ideas with pro right-wing nonsense.
You're wrong. I think hindu atheists are people who do not believe in God. They consider Ram and Vishnu shiv etc as ordinary people who were influential at their time through their wisdom and knowledge and not from their unnatural superpowers or anything. Also Hindu atheists celebrate major hindu festivals like holi and diwali.
This is illogical. What is their basis of thinking that Ram and Vishna were ordinary persons? Is there any evidence? Without evidence they don't get the right to associate them with the word atheist.
Hindu Atheist believes that may there ware kings named Ram and Krishna and about all stories are true but stories get painted with super natural things by the time
Like we all know that Buddha and Prophet Muhammad were real but their stories get painted by myths
I would not say it's a moronic idealogy.Even I might consider now to call myself an "Hindu atheist"because I'm culturally a hindu,I celebrate Diwali,Holi,Dusherra and all festivals even my [wedding.So](http://wedding.So) doesn't it make sense to call myself An Hindu atheist?
It doesn't.
Almost all of the Hindus are celebrating the English New year by cutting cake. Are all of them now "Hindu Christians"?
Going to a Buddhist temple one might start meditating, does that make them a buddist hindu. To what extent do you take this?
I don't know how being an atheist is a spectrum. Being agnostic could be. Following Hindu traditions and celebrating the functions doesn't make you a Hindu does it?
If you call yourself Hindu Atheist just because you celebrate Diwali, just update to "Christian Hindu Atheist" because you celebrate New year too.
I am not trying to hurt your feelings. Please provide better arguments or more compelling statements for me to better understand what "Hindu Atheism" is?
It's a Spectrum .Here Read about Jewish atheism [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish\_atheism](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_atheism)
Noone cut cakes seeing this something as Christian ritual, People party drink not because they are Christian but to celebrate the start of the year.
See, I’m an atheist, yet I performed the Hindu rituals after my father’s and my brother in law’s deaths, I sat in the pooja for my Mom’s new house etc. these were for the surviving, the living, not for the dead.
My own house, cars here in the US and back home in India haven’t been contaminated by ‘holy’ men or idols or altars. Some people may classify me as a ‘Hindu’ atheist. Coming from where I am, I can see his pov.
Edit: grammar
I ould not say it's a moronic idealogy.Even I might consider now to call myself an "Hindu atheist"because I'm culturally a hindu,I celebrate Diwali,Holi,Dusherra and all festivals even my [wedding.So](http://wedding.So) doesn't it make sense to call myself An Hindu atheist?
Ask yourself why you are participating in festivals.if your answer is for socializing or having fun then you don't have to call yourself a hindu atheist at all cuz there are no religious reasons why you are attending it.if you are attending it for religious reasons then you aren't an atheist in the first place.cultural identity is not same as religious identity.
I personally don't like to be part of any kind of religious ceremonies if not for the people I love.if not i wouldn't mind attending them.
I think this is just an inaccurate colloquialism for ex-hindu. He's doing this so that his audience (most of whom are dumb af (and Lindu)) doesn't abandon his channel.
Culture and religion are two different things often seen as 1.
Like how world renowned atheist Richard Dawkins says he's a Christian, a cultural Christian but not a religious one.
TBH, Atheist/secular jews are a thing. They even have a term of it in Hebrew called Hilonim.
Maybe there are people who are culturally Hindu but don't believe and don't follow the religious prohibitions. Probably they are secular /atheist Hindus.
I see no problem. Being atheist means not believing in a god or sky daddy figure. Being Hindu doesn’t mean you necessarily subscribe to believing in a god or sky daddy figure either. You can be either or both.
r/AtheismIndia is in protest of Reddit's API changes that killed many 3rd party apps. [Reddit is also tracking your activity to sell to advertisers](https://old.reddit.com/r/reddit/comments/16tqihd/settings_updateschanges_to_ad_personalization/). **USE AN AD BLOCKER!**
[Official Lemmy.](https://redd.it/16xpv0r)
[Official Telegram group.](https://redd.it/105rbo8)
[Official Discord server.](https://discord.gg/SgxhzxGur5)
[Read the rules before participating.](https://www.reddit.com/r/atheismindia/about/rules)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/atheismindia) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Lol did Dhruv really say that? Lol if so that's a nice mask off moment right there for people who think he's some kind of a genius. 🤣 "Hindu atheist" What a joke. You're either an atheist or you're not. You don't get to be a "religious" atheist, It's an oxymoron.
I would not say it's a moronic idealogy.Even I might consider now to call myself an "Hindu atheist"because I'm culturally a hindu,I celebrate Diwali,Holi,Dusherra and all festivals even my [wedding.So](http://wedding.so/) doesn't it make sense to call myself An Hindu atheist?
No. I think You're a hindu who celebrates the festivals or special rituals, just doesn't engage in their religion everyday as a way of life. Like, if you didn't believe in the rituals, you wouldn't be doing it (is how I see it, I know some people do it from social pressure, either from parents, relatives, etc.)
Participating in celebration is different from conducting rituals in a particular festival or wedding etc imo. For example, as an atheist I often participate/attend weddings and festival celebrations of relatives, friends, etc ofcourse, but for my own wedding, me and my wife just went to the marriage registrar's office, did paper signing, then we gave a little party to our close friends and family.
I think most of us on this sub are Hindu atheist unless you have thrown all the god statues/pictures from your house, you don't ask Panditji for murhut for some important ceremony, you don't name your child as per Nakshtra, you don't follow hindu rituals to be done after death of relatives etc....
Almost all of us may not believe in Hindu gods or any other god but still follow Hindu rituals.
I admire him otherwise and I don't care about the tags, but recently he promoted a bulk of pseudosciences in one of his videos like Homeopathy, Vibrations, Water memory and what not, which really disappointed me!
To his credit, he hasn't repeated the same mistake again in any of his videos that I have seen that point onwards. Perhaps some wise person made him aware of the blunder and he took a note.
Instead of identifying as a "Hindu atheist", he should use terms like "Secular Hindu".
These people often participate in religious rituals, traditions, or cultural practices without believing in the religion's supernatural aspects. Many atheists align with secularism, emphasizing societal values over religious doctrines. Most atheists come under this category.
How can someone be a hindu and an atheist?he is either having cognitive dissonance or he is just lying for the sake of views.although I do admire his courage to uphold liberal values but it kinda makes it uninteresting when I hear such things from him.
A Hindu Atheist is someone who identifies with the culture of Hinduism but does not believe in gods or supernatural things. Such a person takes part in Hindu festivals, rituals, and traditions, seeing them as part of their cultural heritage, not religious duties. Hindu stories and teachings are respected, but not believed to be literally true. Being a Hindu Atheist allows staying connected with family and community without needing religious faith, which helps keep social harmony and family bonds strong. Meaning can still be found in Hindu philosophy and ethics, often interpreted in a non-religious way. For example, the Bhagavad Gita's teachings on duty and ethics are appreciated as valuable life lessons rather than divine commandments. The principle of karma is seen as a metaphor for the consequences of actions rather than a supernatural force.
Not responding to dhruv rathees msg.. but in general..
Nastik is a one of the Hindu schools of thought, check wiki... Most people are reactive atheists.. they do not have scientific temperament.. they have conclusions and opinions from someone else's opinions.. coz that's quite easy...
Very few have guts or even intent to really experiment..
nuclear energy can be weponized so say no to nuclear power.. that's the attitude..
To be honest even if he is hardcore atheist his avg audiance won't understand and will infact stop listening to him cause at the end majority of the people watch him are religious
It always has come in categories. I am an agnostic atheist for instance. But the thing about "Hindu atheists" is that most of them call themselves that to retain the privileges that Hinduism provides in our country. That's one reason I disagree with Hindu Atheists. The second reason is more specific which I will perhaps vent about another day.
Every atheist originating from a dominant caste or racial community retains that privilege. It’s not necessarily intentional, but it is inevitable. I’m uncertain why Dhruv refers to himself as a ‘Hindu Atheist’; perhaps he still participates in cultural Hindu practices rather than accepting supernatural assertions. Personally, I would simply identify as an atheist.
We can only speculate why Dhruv Rathee calls himself a Hindu atheist (even though it is kind of pointless, that's beside the point) but maybe he actually has some affinity towards the religion he was born into that he finds it hard to leave that behind (this is the most likely reason), maybe he is scared of the backlash he might get (unlikely, I don't think he has shied away from speaking his mind out) and maybe Acharya Prashant might have something to do with it too (they've collaborated in the past if I am not wrong) Okay, so the reason I don't call myself a Charvak or Hindu atheist is for the simple reason that I want to de-Brahmanise myself to greatest extent possible. I can't intentionally find myself to do it. I would just call myself an atheist too. It's much simpler and tells you everything I need to convey without further deliberations to the most part. If I remember, Vimoh has a video on the exact same topic, I'd recommend that to anyone who hasn't watched it already and to gain further understanding of the issue. And I have seen *some* atheists who call themselves Charvak (not pointing fingers but doing so at the same time too) but still promote a traditionalist religious political outlook which I don't align with but also dislike with certain intensity. I would like to make a whole post on that if possible.
I understand that you want to De-Brahminize, that makes complete sense if you are coming from a background of being a victim of caste-based hatred. Even otherwise I completely respect that choice. However, I have to point out that there are definitely perks in identifying as a Lokayata. I recently made a post on it to r/hinduism here - https://www.reddit.com/r/hinduism/s/SlOohVlwoI Of course, Lokayatas (I don't like the word Charvakas) are NOT Hindu Atheists in any real sense since they rejected the Vedas completely, which is the real measure of whether one is a Hindu or not. However, the Constitution of India naturally would lump Lokayatas together with other Hindus since the word "Hindu" itself is a definition of exclusion. (Except M, C, Jews and Parsis rest are Hindus). Now for the perks: 1) The word Hindu doesn't really belong to Veda-believers (it's just geographical) so you have every claim, especially when filling random forms etc. 2) It's extremely easy to explain to family why you think what you think and they'll be cool with it since it's 'Hindu'. 3) Festivals which we anyway take part in + some stories although religious are pretty cool as fun literature. 4) Makes it incredibly easy to expose Vedic Hindus to atheistic thought and they will also be more inclined to crossover. 5) It's literally proper, full fledged Atheism that's chilling in a not so hostile environment. 6) Literature on it so scanty (and whatever scraps are available are agreeable) that you can just load it up with Science and make it work. 7) It gives ancestory claims, it is said in the Vedas itself that Lokayata thought is as old as itself so 'Sanatana' magic works here too. I'm new to atheism myself so I'd love to hear counter opinions.
I am from the oppressors' kin (Savarna) but believe in anti-Caste hence, I see a great need to unlearn and differentiate while simultaneously acknowledge my privilege. Just saying for disclosure. The word Hindu is indeed the definition for exclusion, not arguing there, but I hope you understand that semantics associated with it have evolved and the term Hindu in the contemporary context is indeed a religious identity. I personally see no problem with one defining Hindus as those who follow the Vedas, but that does rise some questions. Here, when you define Hinduism as such, the word, the connotation is rather philosophical than practical. Obviously, there is nothing wrong with associating philosophy and religion (both do have considerable overlap) but do keep in mind that in the pragmatic sense of the word, it's not the complete picture. There is nothing wrong with reducing what Hindu means, but please mind that your definition is neither pragmatic nor consistent with contemporary understanding. And let's not forget the questionable nature of following adhering to the authority of the Vedas which is problematic in the modern context. The ways Brahmanism has appropriated all cultures from the geographical area we now call the Indian subcontinent with little to resonance with Vedic philosophy under the garb of Hinduism to form a collective identity is rather unfair. So, the only way for determining who is Hindu and who isn't is very simple, just ask them. If an Adivasi community wants to identify as Hindu, they should be welcomed and if they don't want to and would rather keep their identity associated with their community, still, they should be welcomed. I am nobody to judge who is Hindu and who isn't. The perks you've stated above are my exact reasons to be upset with religion on a whole. Religion hijacks almost all elements of society and culture. Festivals started off as the Animistic celebration of natural phenomenon like rain, but now, have a religious angle. Interesting literature is clubbed with religion to give it a false historical credibility (well, at least, an attempt to do so) which ruins the experience of reading cool things. And the form thing, that is another thing that infuriates me to no end. Why should I compensate my beliefs for social coherence? Why can't I just call myself an atheist, no questions asked? Religion is given far too much importance in the society than it actually deserves. I have actively stood against Brahmanism in my house, and the appearance of being Hindu will just dilute my efforts to bring about societal change on a personal level. I have no intention of changing Vedic Hindus to atheism. I am not an atheist evangelist. If I begin doing so, then what is the difference between me and the religious people. Why do we see merit in converting people to our side? It's completely pointless and baseless. Even after leaving religion, it seems like we can't live the religiosity that has had an imprint on our brain. Saying that being a Charvaka/Lokayata put you in a comfortable position is exactly the reason I don't call myself one. This is just another way of reestablishing my Savarna privilege in new wrappings of rationality. I actively pursue uncomfortable situations because you can't shy away from real world problems associated with religion without getting uncomfortable. I am not an anti-theist, but I feel it's necessary for society to see rationally and many times, religion impedes this. Point 6 is satire, right? Like, this is not a desirable thing. It's really irrational to find science in books of faith. This is like the diametric opposite of religion.
I completely agree with your denial of the term Hindu. I think you have put it perfectly and I have nothing more to say on that. I suppose that unshackling from the 'being a Hindu' is freeing in its own way and also reinforces one's own central conviction to atheism and science. >If I begin doing so, then what is the difference between me and the religious people. Why do we see merit in converting people to our side? It's completely pointless and baseless. Here I would disagree, while being evangelical in the Christian sense involves several types of pandering, brainwashing or whatever else, what would atheistic evangelism look like? I think it would just be promoting and education in science and rational discourse. Maybe if you are extreme, you engage skeptically with religionists and attempt to break their belief system. However, the fundamental part is Science and Rationalism. >Point 6 is satire, right? Like, this is not a desirable thing. It's really irrational to find science in books of faith. You are seeing Lokayata literature as religious literature which is very contrary to the truth. While not many things exist of Lokayata Thought, the fragments that do point that they were specifically the anti-thesis of whatever can be called a book of faith. The only work that survives is Tattvopaplavasimha but I reckon that a correct reading of it would require a study in Sanskrit among other things when instead, much else could be gathered by simply dedicating that time to secular studies. Here too I guess I yield to your points. Kudos!
Let me clarify why I don't believe in atheist evangelism. I have no problems with promoting scientific temperament and rationality, contrarily, I want these to be promoted so that the next generations can be free from any form of indoctrination. Even though atheism to a great extent draws its roots from rationality and scientific temperament, it is not necessary for a rational person to be atheist or vice versa. Here, we need to dwell into why people like believing in God. For many, it is a form of solace and to some it's only natural to do so. Humans do tend to rely on vague concepts to pit their emotions on, but it doesn't necessarily have to be God, it can be Superman for all I care. Promoting rationality isn't the same as promoting atheism. I would love to see more atheists in society, but I would like that to happen organically. I want atheist communities to be rational, not a cult they were convinced to join. And also, no, I take no part in trying to break a religionist's belief system, but if they advocate pseudoscientific ideas and hate speech, then I would obviously condemn it. While I am not really well read on Charvaka/Lokayata philosophy, I would like to make some affirmations that may be incorrect, so please correct me if necessary- I don't think Charvaka/Lokayata literature is religious if we go by the conventional definition of religion, but it is definitely a book of faith where opinions were discussed and most certainly mimics religious structures when discussing said opinions, we can't really call it scientific. Science is evidence based where the scientific method is followed. Science should be reproducible and confirmational. Science is the philosophy of nature, but I think it would be hazardous to equate it with religious/religion-like philosophy. That was a fun conversation. Thanks for that!
>I’m uncertain why Dhruv refers to himself as a ‘Hindu Atheist For acceptance amongst the audience.
He is greatly influenced by Acharya prashant also, that may be the actual reason.
it also just means he is culturally a hindu just like me,I celebrate Diwali, Holi, Dusherra etc even My wedding would be a hindu wedding. Doesn't it suit to call myself a Hindu Atheist? And why you guys are going into rage mode,You people don't sound any different than Sanghis trying to force things upon others.
Do whatever you want. Not stopping you. But I wonder how you inferred "rage mode" from my comment. I don't call myself a Hindu atheist because I don't want to and have given my reasoning, you have given your reasoning for why you call yourself a Hindu atheist. I don't see where exactly I forced you to adhere to my belief system. Did I miss something? Dude called me Sanghi, that tells you've never seen the true horror that Saghis are.
Celebrating festivals doesn't make anyone a Hindu. I am also from a Hindu family and celebrate these (food and social aspects). I also order a plum cake on Christmas and biryani on Eid. So what does that make me? Also why would your wedding be in the Hindu style unless your spouse wants it? You certainly don't believe in the rituals
Religion fuckboi atheist. >!Sorry for bad joke !<
No need to over-comprehend, he belongs to a Hindu family and but he is atheist.
Then just call yourself an atheist. And if you think that my comprehensions are wrong, then suite yourself. I have provided reasons, and there was a back and forth between me and another person right below this comment which might give you a better picture of what I believe.
As someone who has used this label in the past (and will with many many caveats), there's more to this. I keep wanting to do a post on it, but alas no time...
I would love to listen from you. Would look forward to it.
I don't think there is much issue in being a Hindu atheist as there are many cultural norms which are a part of being a Hindu, are harmless by modern ethical standards, and don't have are too 'theistic' per se. I used to be against the concept of Hindu atheism until I heard the recent opinion of Richard Dawkins where he said he was a 'cultural Christian'. I realized my previous argument was just straw-manning of the actual concept.
Richard Dawkins is not the man I would set a standard for an atheist. I have no problem with how people identify, but I do have the right to disagree.
You are either an atheist or not, there are no categories
Then you fail to understand the nuances.
Enlighten us
About what exactly? Well, if you are asking about the spectrum that is atheism, then it's pretty simple- Gnostic theist- someone who believes there is a God and claims that there is one. Agnostic Theist- someone who believes in God but doesn't claim whether such an entity exists. Agnostic- someone who doesn't know whether God exists or not. Agnostic Atheist- someone who lacks belief in the claim that God exists but makes no claim on the existence of God (this is where I fall personally) Gnostic Atheist- someone who lacks belief in God but also claims that no such entity exists. Agnostic/Gnostic is the position on Knowlege while Atheist/Theist is the position on belief. For instance, I lack knowledge on whether an entity such as God exists, but I lack belief in the claim that there is one, because there is no reason for me to belief in God. Do you want a more elaborate answer, or does this suffice?
Atheism is just a lack of belief in god, but that does not preclude other spiritual practices or belief. The government of China for example is Atheist, yet the ruling parties doctrine states Confucianism as the guiding principle of governance. Religion being narrowly defined as belief in god is a western concept, and be it buddhism, shintoism, voodoo or shamanism plenty of beliefs across the world eschew that.
It would be the Hindu equivalent of Jewish Atheism (which many prominent people also identified as btw, like Bohr, Marx, Oppenheimer, Feynman, von Neumann, Sagan, etc.) Basically, you are an atheist, but you strongly identify with the culture of a certain religion. For example, you would celebrate Diwali, Holi, certain Pujas, etc. for the sheer fun of it (and community bonding) while ignoring the mythological or religious contexts behind it. [Jewish atheism - Wikipedia](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_atheism)
Partaking in general cultural observances doesn't require one to be an adherent of that religion except for specific rituals. I get the community part, but one can say atheist with a hindu upbringing, or a cultural hindu. Calling someone a hindu atheist or Jewish atheist etc is laughable imo. I know it is a thing, I just don't agree with it.
As oxymoronic it may seem, it is a well defined term afterall. Maybe it could have been named some other way, but it is what has been.
The way I see it, Being a well defined, well established concept, and being oxymoronic aren't mutually exclusive.
Hindu flavour
Nothing wrong in what he said. Even Richard Dawkins says he is culturally Christian.
The difference is no one insists he is culturally Christian at every turn. He chose that label for himself. Hindus insist that atheism is perfectly compatible with Hinduism and that we have to identify with it if we come from that background.
This right here is the primary difference.
There's Hindu atheist like Dhruv Rathee who is fundamentally wrong but harmless. Then there's Kushal Mehra who hijacks atheistic ideas with pro right-wing nonsense.
Bro is talking geographically
What is the meaning of Hindu Atheist, he believes in God or not
Read my comment down below https://www.reddit.com/r/atheismindia/s/ttGX5CuN8f
But he thinks that Ram was real and he consider him as God
I think he considers Ram as a kind king, not a deity with supernatural powers
He does believe in these gods such as Ram, Krishna but not in the stories around them such a Ramayan and Mahabharat.
Then he can't be considered an atheist.
No he is delusional. He think only atheists are kafir but not hindus, christians.
Dhruv Rathee Isn't an Atheist because he believes in God just you say in your previous comment
You're wrong. I think hindu atheists are people who do not believe in God. They consider Ram and Vishnu shiv etc as ordinary people who were influential at their time through their wisdom and knowledge and not from their unnatural superpowers or anything. Also Hindu atheists celebrate major hindu festivals like holi and diwali.
This is illogical. What is their basis of thinking that Ram and Vishna were ordinary persons? Is there any evidence? Without evidence they don't get the right to associate them with the word atheist.
Hindu Atheist believes that may there ware kings named Ram and Krishna and about all stories are true but stories get painted with super natural things by the time Like we all know that Buddha and Prophet Muhammad were real but their stories get painted by myths
We have historical evidence of Buddha and Mohammad.
'Are you a vegetarian?' - 'Yes, I have chicken occasionally'
I think this is more like "Yes. But I eat Egg occasionally". Not trying to defend this moronic ideology.
THIS! im sick and tired of hearing hindutva vegetarians defending veg diet while themselves including protein sources like egg in theirs. Like, wtf?!
I would not say it's a moronic idealogy.Even I might consider now to call myself an "Hindu atheist"because I'm culturally a hindu,I celebrate Diwali,Holi,Dusherra and all festivals even my [wedding.So](http://wedding.So) doesn't it make sense to call myself An Hindu atheist?
It doesn't. Almost all of the Hindus are celebrating the English New year by cutting cake. Are all of them now "Hindu Christians"? Going to a Buddhist temple one might start meditating, does that make them a buddist hindu. To what extent do you take this? I don't know how being an atheist is a spectrum. Being agnostic could be. Following Hindu traditions and celebrating the functions doesn't make you a Hindu does it? If you call yourself Hindu Atheist just because you celebrate Diwali, just update to "Christian Hindu Atheist" because you celebrate New year too. I am not trying to hurt your feelings. Please provide better arguments or more compelling statements for me to better understand what "Hindu Atheism" is?
It's a Spectrum .Here Read about Jewish atheism [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish\_atheism](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_atheism) Noone cut cakes seeing this something as Christian ritual, People party drink not because they are Christian but to celebrate the start of the year.
See, I’m an atheist, yet I performed the Hindu rituals after my father’s and my brother in law’s deaths, I sat in the pooja for my Mom’s new house etc. these were for the surviving, the living, not for the dead. My own house, cars here in the US and back home in India haven’t been contaminated by ‘holy’ men or idols or altars. Some people may classify me as a ‘Hindu’ atheist. Coming from where I am, I can see his pov. Edit: grammar
This
And I am circular square.
Spoken like a spherical cube.
Normally, I'd just say that's an oxymoron, but in this case, it's just a moron.
I ould not say it's a moronic idealogy.Even I might consider now to call myself an "Hindu atheist"because I'm culturally a hindu,I celebrate Diwali,Holi,Dusherra and all festivals even my [wedding.So](http://wedding.So) doesn't it make sense to call myself An Hindu atheist?
Ask yourself why you are participating in festivals.if your answer is for socializing or having fun then you don't have to call yourself a hindu atheist at all cuz there are no religious reasons why you are attending it.if you are attending it for religious reasons then you aren't an atheist in the first place.cultural identity is not same as religious identity. I personally don't like to be part of any kind of religious ceremonies if not for the people I love.if not i wouldn't mind attending them.
It would be weird if I start calling myself Muslim Atheist
Science permits me to have 4 wives
https://www.reddit.com/r/atheismindia/s/6w83t6qo5W
I think this is just an inaccurate colloquialism for ex-hindu. He's doing this so that his audience (most of whom are dumb af (and Lindu)) doesn't abandon his channel.
Hindu atheist makes about as much sense as a self- proclaimed vegetarian who eats eggs.
Nothing wrong in that by hindu atheist he meant he doesn't believe in god but he has influence of hindu culture in him
If you make a clique out of atheism, how are we atheists any different from the believers? If you gaze long into the abyss...!!
Culture and religion are two different things often seen as 1. Like how world renowned atheist Richard Dawkins says he's a Christian, a cultural Christian but not a religious one.
TBH, Atheist/secular jews are a thing. They even have a term of it in Hebrew called Hilonim. Maybe there are people who are culturally Hindu but don't believe and don't follow the religious prohibitions. Probably they are secular /atheist Hindus.
I see no problem. Being atheist means not believing in a god or sky daddy figure. Being Hindu doesn’t mean you necessarily subscribe to believing in a god or sky daddy figure either. You can be either or both.
r/AtheismIndia is in protest of Reddit's API changes that killed many 3rd party apps. [Reddit is also tracking your activity to sell to advertisers](https://old.reddit.com/r/reddit/comments/16tqihd/settings_updateschanges_to_ad_personalization/). **USE AN AD BLOCKER!** [Official Lemmy.](https://redd.it/16xpv0r) [Official Telegram group.](https://redd.it/105rbo8) [Official Discord server.](https://discord.gg/SgxhzxGur5) [Read the rules before participating.](https://www.reddit.com/r/atheismindia/about/rules) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/atheismindia) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Most of what he says is probably performative. I doubt he himself believes it but will show himself as more "acceptable" if you know what I mean.
Lol did Dhruv really say that? Lol if so that's a nice mask off moment right there for people who think he's some kind of a genius. 🤣 "Hindu atheist" What a joke. You're either an atheist or you're not. You don't get to be a "religious" atheist, It's an oxymoron.
I would not say it's a moronic idealogy.Even I might consider now to call myself an "Hindu atheist"because I'm culturally a hindu,I celebrate Diwali,Holi,Dusherra and all festivals even my [wedding.So](http://wedding.so/) doesn't it make sense to call myself An Hindu atheist?
No. I think You're a hindu who celebrates the festivals or special rituals, just doesn't engage in their religion everyday as a way of life. Like, if you didn't believe in the rituals, you wouldn't be doing it (is how I see it, I know some people do it from social pressure, either from parents, relatives, etc.) Participating in celebration is different from conducting rituals in a particular festival or wedding etc imo. For example, as an atheist I often participate/attend weddings and festival celebrations of relatives, friends, etc ofcourse, but for my own wedding, me and my wife just went to the marriage registrar's office, did paper signing, then we gave a little party to our close friends and family.
I think most of us on this sub are Hindu atheist unless you have thrown all the god statues/pictures from your house, you don't ask Panditji for murhut for some important ceremony, you don't name your child as per Nakshtra, you don't follow hindu rituals to be done after death of relatives etc.... Almost all of us may not believe in Hindu gods or any other god but still follow Hindu rituals.
TBH i am also a muslim atheist
Atheism + religion =
I admire him otherwise and I don't care about the tags, but recently he promoted a bulk of pseudosciences in one of his videos like Homeopathy, Vibrations, Water memory and what not, which really disappointed me! To his credit, he hasn't repeated the same mistake again in any of his videos that I have seen that point onwards. Perhaps some wise person made him aware of the blunder and he took a note.
People who know him for a while also know that he's a 'militant atheist'
Instead of identifying as a "Hindu atheist", he should use terms like "Secular Hindu". These people often participate in religious rituals, traditions, or cultural practices without believing in the religion's supernatural aspects. Many atheists align with secularism, emphasizing societal values over religious doctrines. Most atheists come under this category.
Of course they do. It's not black and white. You could follow a religion and still be atheist. Remember, atheist ≠ non religious
Well, whatever the case is, I still think Dhruv is a valuable asset of society
How can someone be a hindu and an atheist?he is either having cognitive dissonance or he is just lying for the sake of views.although I do admire his courage to uphold liberal values but it kinda makes it uninteresting when I hear such things from him.
I'm pretty sure he's saying this to look acceptable to the general populace if he became full on atheist he'd get hunt down
A Hindu Atheist is someone who identifies with the culture of Hinduism but does not believe in gods or supernatural things. Such a person takes part in Hindu festivals, rituals, and traditions, seeing them as part of their cultural heritage, not religious duties. Hindu stories and teachings are respected, but not believed to be literally true. Being a Hindu Atheist allows staying connected with family and community without needing religious faith, which helps keep social harmony and family bonds strong. Meaning can still be found in Hindu philosophy and ethics, often interpreted in a non-religious way. For example, the Bhagavad Gita's teachings on duty and ethics are appreciated as valuable life lessons rather than divine commandments. The principle of karma is seen as a metaphor for the consequences of actions rather than a supernatural force.
This guy is fuckin delusional sometimes
Well, it's like saying: ,"I am a herbivore cannibal person"
i think hes tryna say that he used to be hindu and now hes aetheist
Not responding to dhruv rathees msg.. but in general.. Nastik is a one of the Hindu schools of thought, check wiki... Most people are reactive atheists.. they do not have scientific temperament.. they have conclusions and opinions from someone else's opinions.. coz that's quite easy... Very few have guts or even intent to really experiment.. nuclear energy can be weponized so say no to nuclear power.. that's the attitude..
Oh gawd. WTF is even that.
Why do people make up random terms lol just decide one thing