Talk:Hinduism

	This Hinduism related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>

, (new)

Dawkins quote

We can do better than a fucking Dawkins quote, this one from Sagan is a good one:

“”A millennium before Europeans were willing to divest themselves of the Biblical idea that the world was a few thousand years old, the Mayans were thinking of millions and the Hindus billions.

This isn't 2011, we can do better than this. — Oxyaena ^Harass 17:19, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

@Oxyaena You can go ahead and replace it. I just chose the Dawkins quote because it introduces the poly/mono/pan-theistic question. Also, forgive my ignorance, but why are you so vehemently against Dawkins? DuceMoosolini^{Your friendly RW dictator moderator} 19:36, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Dawkins is a bigoted piece of shit. — Oxyaena ^Harass 20:59, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

of course if you are a hindu ^{— Unsigned, by: 59.97.118.102 / talk}

they are referring to the fact that Dawkins was Islamophobic... — 𝗦𝗾𝗿𝘁-𝟭 ^{talk stalk} 15:08, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Removing “There are atheistic and theistic schools of thought within Hinduism.”

[Rig Veda 2.13.5] “Thou hast created earth to look upon the sky: thou, slaying Ahi, settest free the river's paths... Thee, such, a God, the Gods have quickened with their lauds, even as a steed with waters: meet for praise art thou.” (According to this verse, Indra created the earth)

The same scripture (Rig Veda), but some books later, we have the creation of the heaven and the earth being attributed to Vishwakarma, the divine architect. [Rig Veda 10.82.1] “THE Father of the eye, the Wise in spirit, created both these worlds submerged in fatness... Then when the eastern ends were firmly fastened, the heavens and the earth were far extended.”

10.129.7 doesn’t prove that Rig Veda was indeed agnostic. The fact that Hinduism contains atheistic schools of thought has been mentioned before in the article, and doesn’t need a reference to a scripture. — 𝗦𝗾𝗿𝘁-𝟭 ^{talk stalk} 08:32, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Manusmriti authenticity

Lots of academic sources have said the manusmriti is not authentic and contradicts itself, should this be included because currently it calls it the "Most authoritiatve source of hindu law" ^{— Unsigned, by: FannyRaymond / talk / contribs}

Many scriptures contain contradictions. We have articles of how the Bible and the Quran contradict themselves. I assure you, that the Manusmriti is certainly authoritative, being the most important part of the Dharmshashtras. The problematic line is likely copied from an Encyclopedia Britannica article, as shown by a Google search. — 𝗦𝗾𝗿𝘁-𝟭 ^{talk stalk} 15:13, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Changing the quote

We can do with a much better quote "In Hinduism, conscience, reason, and independent thinking have no scope for development." -Dr.B.R.Ambedkar [1] ^{— Unsigned, by: 59.97.118.102 / talk}

That quote is not very... insightful, really. The only reason I see why one would add it is because it criticises Hinduism. Perhaps if it would give a valid explanation as to why, it would be much better. It feels that this quote is referring to the fact that most Hindus still couldn't see through caste at that time, and the origin of caste in Hindusim is much debated. — 𝗦𝗾𝗿𝘁-𝟭 ^{talk stalk} 15:18, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

The Satanic Verses Part 2

Anyone got info on The Satanic Verses of Bhagavad-gita?--2600:387:F:4B31:0:0:0:5 (talk) 11:29, 3 March 2022 (UTC)