LuisDantas,
Typically in modern parlance 'atheist' refers to one who lacks a belief in a God or gods (small g), and this usually, though not always, goes hand in hand with a rejection of supra-sensuous or supernatural realities (that is, most atheists also tend to be materialists). There are some, such as certain sects of Buddhism, that could be deemed atheist or rather non-theist and yet uphold the existence of supra-sensuous realities.
Within the six Astika or orthodox 'schools' of Hinduism, there are two 'philosophies' which can be classed as non-theist as God does not enter into discussion. These are the Samkhya and Vaisheshika schools. The former posited an eternal dualism between consciousness and matter, and the latter posited the reductionism of the universe into atoms. Neither to my knowledge refer to the concept of Ishwara, God, as a distinct category (though I may be wrong on Vaisheshika). They do, however, affirm the existence of other supra-sensuous realities which are revealed in the Vedas. Later they were merged with two sister Astika schools, Yoga and nyAya respectively, both of which do accept the existence of God. Theremaining two Astika philosophies, mimAmsA and VedAnta, affirm the existence of both devas (small g gods) and/or Ishwara.
In Hinduism, orthodoxy is not defined by the acceptance or rejection of theism, per say, (though atheism is pretty much extinct in Hinduism since Vaisheshika is defunct and Samkhya became totally absorbed into Yoga/VedAnta) but rather as acceptance of the Vedas as a revealed and valid pramAna (authoritative means of knowledge).
nAstika philosophies, on the other hand, reject whole cloth the Veda as an authority and/or the supra-sensuous realities as revealed by the Veda. Buddhism and Jainism, for example, are nAstika. Modern day understanding of atheism in conjunction with materialism would also be nAstika, as it echoes the ancient nAstika atheistic/materialistic philosophy known as chArvAka, which denied both the authority of the Vedas and rejected the existence of God, devas, the soul, rebirth, etc.
Hope this is helpful.
Aup,
The only existent entity is Brahman. I too am Brahman. Is Brahman God? Can that mean that I too am God. Am I a God? Am I all-knowing, all-powerful, all-pervading. That will be very presumptuous. Can I ask the sun not to set? No, I can't. Therefore, I am no God, I am human. If I am Brahman and no entity other than Brahman exists, then how come an entity (God) which is neither Brahman nor me can exist? Therefore, there is no God (or Goddess).
This is nonsense. Look at the logic:
Premise: There is no God, since;
1)Only Brahman exists
therefore,
2)I am Brahman
and,
3)As I am a limited human being, not omniscient,omnipotent,etc, and as I am Brahman
therefore,
4)Brahman is a limited human being, not omniscient, omnipotent
and since,
5)Only Brahman exists, which is not omniscient, not omnipotent etc,
therefore,
6)There is no God.
This is wholly daft. The logical implication here is that if Brahman is identical to a human being called Aupmanyav and that
alone is Brahman, then since Brahman alone exists then not only can there be no God, but there can be nothing in existence but the body/mind called Aupmanyav. There cannot be anything that exists but the upadhi called Aupmanyav. That means there are no other humans, nor anything else whatsoever. There is no understanding of the definition of 'Brahman', 'I', or the sentence 'Brahman is the only existent entity'. The mAhAvakyas need to be thoroughly deconstructed beyond their surface connotations (
both the 'You' and the 'That' in 'You are That', for example, should be correctly understood) otherwise you are going to continue using logic in absurd ways as demonstrated above.The real connotation of the word 'I' or 'You' is not the limited and weak human body with which you identify. All of your objections proceed only from your own ignorance and sheer stubborn refusal to go past your materialistic presumptions and probe deeply into the true identity of 'I' as is revealed in VedAnta.