Can Hindus be atheist?

[Spirit_Warrior]

Reposted from Hindu DIR:

EDIT: Both Hindus and Atheists can participate in this debate.

I know that there are many atheists who identify as Hindus or Hindu atheists. But I understand there are atheists who identify as Christian as well or Christian atheists. Yet to me this sounds like an oxymoron. People can self-identify as anything, they can even think they are a giant cucumber, but that does not make it right. It seems strange to me that one could be a Hindu atheist, when Hindu scriptures condemn atheism very strongly. In the Ramayana an atheist tries to corrupt Lord Rama's mind, and Rama strongly rebukes him and condemns his beliefs. In the Bhagvad Gita, Krishna calls atheists the worst of names demonic, deceitful, arrogant etc and condemns them to hellish births. In fact the biggest condemnation we hear in Hindu scriptures is not for other religions who believe in other Gods, but atheism and materialism.

Then there is this argument that some schools of Hindu philosophy are atheist like Samkhya and Purva Mimamsa. Actually, that is not completely true, and if it was true, it is no longer true. First of all, the original Samkhya in the Upanishads and the Bhagvad Gita and the later Samkhya in the Puranas is theistic. The classical Samkhya of Ishvarkrishna in the Samkhyakarika does not mention Ishvara as a tattva, but that does not mean that it is atheist. It is simply silent about God. That is because it is not a treatise on God, it is a treatise on Prakriti and her relationship with purushas. Similarly Jamini's Mimamsa sutras are not a treatise on God either, they are a treatise on the word meaning of the mantras and rituals. If even we grant that they were originally atheist schools of thought, they are definitely not now. Samkhya was merged into Vedanta by medieval times and ceased to exist as an independent school and Mimamsa was merged into Vedanta in the late middle ages and ceased to exist as an independent school. Therefore, if there ever was an atheist school of Hindu philosophy, it certainly does not exist now.

Rejecting God, reincarnation, soul etc in Hinduism would be akin to rejecting Jesus in Christianity and Mohammed in Islam. That would excommunicate one from the religion.

 

[LuisDantas]

Hi, @Spirit_Warrior

Thanks for creating this thread. However, I must ask you something.

May you please indicate which group or groups you want to participate in this discussion? And indicate those in the thread title if at all possible?

For some elaboration on why that is necessary, see Same Faith Debates - Special Rules

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

Hi, @Spirit_Warrior

Thanks for creating this thread. However, I must ask you something.

May you please indicate which group or groups you want to participate in this discussion? And indicate those in the thread title if at all possible?

For some elaboration on why that is necessary, see Same Faith Debates - Special Rules

Ah, yes I was thinking same faith debate would only means Hindus. However, I would like Hindus and Atheists to participate in this debate. I will specify that in the OP.

 

[Vinayaka]

In my personal view, one cannot be a Hindu, and an atheist. One of the core tenets of Hinduism is theism. Yes, it may differ widely from the Abrahamic or philosophical takes on what theism is exactly, but if it is some power or force or etheric substance that is recognised to be beyond the realms of normal consciousness, then we can call it God. Hinduism has always maintained the belief in this, whether we call it Brahman, spirit, cosmic consciousness, or whatever else.

I hope SW, that this thread will bring new insights to an oft debated topic.

 

[crossfire]

Question: can one consider the gods to be archetypes of the collective unconscious and still be Hindu?

 

[sayak83]

Reposted from Hindu DIR:

EDIT: Both Hindus and Atheists can participate in this debate.

I know that there are many atheists who identify as Hindus or Hindu atheists. But I understand there are atheists who identify as Christian as well or Christian atheists. Yet to me this sounds like an oxymoron. People can self-identify as anything, they can even think they are a giant cucumber, but that does not make it right. It seems strange to me that one could be a Hindu atheist, when Hindu scriptures condemn atheism very strongly. In the Ramayana an atheist tries to corrupt Lord Rama's mind, and Rama strongly rebukes him and condemns his beliefs. In the Bhagvad Gita, Krishna calls atheists the worst of names demonic, deceitful, arrogant etc and condemns them to hellish births. In fact the biggest condemnation we hear in Hindu scriptures is not for other religions who believe in other Gods, but atheism and materialism.

Then there is this argument that some schools of Hindu philosophy are atheist like Samkhya and Purva Mimamsa. Actually, that is not completely true, and if it was true, it is no longer true. First of all, the original Samkhya in the Upanishads and the Bhagvad Gita and the later Samkhya in the Puranas is theistic. The classical Samkhya of Ishvarkrishna in the Samkhyakarika does not mention Ishvara as a tattva, but that does not mean that it is atheist. It is simply silent about God. That is because it is not a treatise on God, it is a treatise on Prakriti and her relationship with purushas. Similarly Jamini's Mimamsa sutras are not a treatise on God either, they are a treatise on the word meaning of the mantras and rituals. If even we grant that they were originally atheist schools of thought, they are definitely not now. Samkhya was merged into Vedanta by medieval times and ceased to exist as an independent school and Mimamsa was merged into Vedanta in the late middle ages and ceased to exist as an independent school. Therefore, if there ever was an atheist school of Hindu philosophy, it certainly does not exist now.

Rejecting God, reincarnation, soul etc in Hinduism would be akin to rejecting Jesus in Christianity and Mohammed in Islam. That would excommunicate one from the religion.

Yes. Modern sensibilities not-withstanding early Samkhya and Vaisesika were indeed atheists or agnostics as well as Mimansa. And, modern sensibilities not withstanding, Buddhists, Jains and Ajjivikas were part of the darsana-s that characterized the Dharmic way of living in India and were fully included in the debates and conversations about theology and philosophy by all ancient commentators. If one says that they are non-Vedic, then so are the Agama-s.
The narrowing of the originally expansive Hinduism in the late Middle ages is something to be lamented and corrected, not clung to, going forward.

 

[columbus]

I know that there are many atheists who identify as Hindus or Hindu atheists. But I understand there are atheists who identify as Christian as well or Christian atheists. Yet to me this sounds like an oxymoron. People can self-identify as anything, they can even think they are a giant cucumber, but that does not make it right.

I was born and raised Roman Catholic, in a very Irish Catholic family. I will always be Catholic. It's a culture, besides being a religion.

Hinduism appears to be similar in that regard. It's bigger and more pervasive than just the theology. It's a culture as well. Doesn't matter what you think is right.
Tom

 

[LuisDantas]

I spoke a bit on my take on the issue in the other thread:

A question for those who know god does not exist

But to reword it: I don't think belief in deities is, was or can ever be very significant a part of any religion.

It can be and is very significant for many individual people's religious practice, sure; some people have very strong tendencies towards theism and belief and that must be acknowledged and handled respectfully and constructively.

But ultimately, deities are just the right kind of entity for belief in their existence to have little point either way. People may believe in ideologies or causes and further them, but they can not make deities any more or less "real" with their own actions.

It would be at least odd if they could, anyway; is the Bhakta meant to validate the Deva? I would think not.

Devas may or may not be real in a literal sense, but what matters is instead what they inspire; what they symbolize; and also the serene acceptance that it is not necessary for mortal humans to worry too much about whether they have a "correct" understanding of the personifications of transcendence. Some would say that it is all-out impossible for a human to attain such a grasp of transcendence. I may well agree. I certainly don't think we should stress ourselves much about that.

The bottom line is that religion as I understand it, and definitely the Dharmas, are just not supposed to be bothered much by matters of personal belief. They do not need nor have such a vulnerability.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Reposted from Hindu DIR:

EDIT: Both Hindus and Atheists can participate in this debate.

I know that there are many atheists who identify as Hindus or Hindu atheists. But I understand there are atheists who identify as Christian as well or Christian atheists. Yet to me this sounds like an oxymoron. People can self-identify as anything, they can even think they are a giant cucumber, but that does not make it right. It seems strange to me that one could be a Hindu atheist, when Hindu scriptures condemn atheism very strongly. In the Ramayana an atheist tries to corrupt Lord Rama's mind, and Rama strongly rebukes him and condemns his beliefs. In the Bhagvad Gita, Krishna calls atheists the worst of names demonic, deceitful, arrogant etc and condemns them to hellish births. In fact the biggest condemnation we hear in Hindu scriptures is not for other religions who believe in other Gods, but atheism and materialism.

Then there is this argument that some schools of Hindu philosophy are atheist like Samkhya and Purva Mimamsa. Actually, that is not completely true, and if it was true, it is no longer true. First of all, the original Samkhya in the Upanishads and the Bhagvad Gita and the later Samkhya in the Puranas is theistic. The classical Samkhya of Ishvarkrishna in the Samkhyakarika does not mention Ishvara as a tattva, but that does not mean that it is atheist. It is simply silent about God. That is because it is not a treatise on God, it is a treatise on Prakriti and her relationship with purushas. Similarly Jamini's Mimamsa sutras are not a treatise on God either, they are a treatise on the word meaning of the mantras and rituals. If even we grant that they were originally atheist schools of thought, they are definitely not now. Samkhya was merged into Vedanta by medieval times and ceased to exist as an independent school and Mimamsa was merged into Vedanta in the late middle ages and ceased to exist as an independent school. Therefore, if there ever was an atheist school of Hindu philosophy, it certainly does not exist now.

Rejecting God, reincarnation, soul etc in Hinduism would be akin to rejecting Jesus in Christianity and Mohammed in Islam. That would excommunicate one from the religion.

Im just making an educated guess. Im assuming in the past, atheist the word atheist didnt exist. Then it was pagan vs. X-believer. If atheist arose out of something, it wasnt the general "disbelief in god/s" but, like other terms, opposing the abrahamic god.

Like protestants to catholics, it could be athiests to god-believers/creators.

Hindu isng a religion of abraham. So, unless the atheist believes in no deities (not specifically a creeator), he may be using the term to identify is "disbelief" but maintains his belief in Hinduism but rejecting ither gods all gods atheism specifically applies to.

If my history and guessing serves me correct that ia.

 

[gnostic]

Can Hindus be atheist?

To answer this question, a question needs to be ask, before your question can be answered.

Does the core of Hinduism mean accepting and believing in any Hindu deity?

If "no", then of course, a Hindu can be an "atheist".

If "yes", then no, Hindus cannot be atheists.

Atheism is simply a belief that there are no deity or deities.

Theism is about accepting the existence of deity or deities, believing these entities are real.

So if you were Hindu, and you follow Brahma, Kali, Indra, Siva or Vishnu, then you cannot be an atheist.

 

[SomeRandom]

I knew atheists who attended Temple when I was younger. Hinduism is cultural as well. It's sort of like being Half Jewish in a sense.
Cultural Hindus exist and many seem to be athiest. But they attend ceremonies out of a sense of duty towards their parents and to uphold the honour of their family.
Hinduism is very complex and there are many nuances. It's all well and good to say one has to do this or believe in X to be a "proper Hindu." But that itself is against the principles of the philosophy. One cannot take responsibility for the salvation of another person. That's why Hindus don't go around door knocking. A personal relationship, however quirky, with religion or lack thereof is very important to Hindus. Free will is almost a sacred right in that regard. So Hindus will generally avoid starting religious arguments, proselytising and usually mind their own business. Even amongst other Hindus.

 

[Chakra]

Atheism can easily be a part of Hinduism; materialism, on the other hand, does not seem to mesh with the general tenets of Hinduism imho.

 

[David T]

Reposted from Hindu DIR:

EDIT: Both Hindus and Atheists can participate in this debate.

I know that there are many atheists who identify as Hindus or Hindu atheists. But I understand there are atheists who identify as Christian as well or Christian atheists. Yet to me this sounds like an oxymoron. People can self-identify as anything, they can even think they are a giant cucumber, but that does not make it right. It seems strange to me that one could be a Hindu atheist, when Hindu scriptures condemn atheism very strongly. In the Ramayana an atheist tries to corrupt Lord Rama's mind, and Rama strongly rebukes him and condemns his beliefs. In the Bhagvad Gita, Krishna calls atheists the worst of names demonic, deceitful, arrogant etc and condemns them to hellish births. In fact the biggest condemnation we hear in Hindu scriptures is not for other religions who believe in other Gods, but atheism and materialism.

Then there is this argument that some schools of Hindu philosophy are atheist like Samkhya and Purva Mimamsa. Actually, that is not completely true, and if it was true, it is no longer true. First of all, the original Samkhya in the Upanishads and the Bhagvad Gita and the later Samkhya in the Puranas is theistic. The classical Samkhya of Ishvarkrishna in the Samkhyakarika does not mention Ishvara as a tattva, but that does not mean that it is atheist. It is simply silent about God. That is because it is not a treatise on God, it is a treatise on Prakriti and her relationship with purushas. Similarly Jamini's Mimamsa sutras are not a treatise on God either, they are a treatise on the word meaning of the mantras and rituals. If even we grant that they were originally atheist schools of thought, they are definitely not now. Samkhya was merged into Vedanta by medieval times and ceased to exist as an independent school and Mimamsa was merged into Vedanta in the late middle ages and ceased to exist as an independent school. Therefore, if there ever was an atheist school of Hindu philosophy, it certainly does not exist now.

Rejecting God, reincarnation, soul etc in Hinduism would be akin to rejecting Jesus in Christianity and Mohammed in Islam. That would excommunicate one from the religion.

Nope genetically impossible. And if they do claim to be atheistic they were never a Hindu genetically in the first place.!!! Nope just people with great tans. It's already been shown scientifically to be true case closed!!!!

Btw I just love posting nonsense here it makes me feeeeeel so nooooooormal!!!!!! Like I fit in!!!

 

[David T]

Luis

But to reword it: I don't think belief in deities is, was or can ever be very significant a part of any religion.

Fantastic statement. That's the intellectual plague in christianity right now. That also can and does extend into a larger framework but it's really spot on in so many ways.

 

[sayak83]

Reposted from Hindu DIR:

EDIT: Both Hindus and Atheists can participate in this debate.

I know that there are many atheists who identify as Hindus or Hindu atheists. But I understand there are atheists who identify as Christian as well or Christian atheists. Yet to me this sounds like an oxymoron. People can self-identify as anything, they can even think they are a giant cucumber, but that does not make it right. It seems strange to me that one could be a Hindu atheist, when Hindu scriptures condemn atheism very strongly. In the Ramayana an atheist tries to corrupt Lord Rama's mind, and Rama strongly rebukes him and condemns his beliefs. In the Bhagvad Gita, Krishna calls atheists the worst of names demonic, deceitful, arrogant etc and condemns them to hellish births. In fact the biggest condemnation we hear in Hindu scriptures is not for other religions who believe in other Gods, but atheism and materialism.

Then there is this argument that some schools of Hindu philosophy are atheist like Samkhya and Purva Mimamsa. Actually, that is not completely true, and if it was true, it is no longer true. First of all, the original Samkhya in the Upanishads and the Bhagvad Gita and the later Samkhya in the Puranas is theistic. The classical Samkhya of Ishvarkrishna in the Samkhyakarika does not mention Ishvara as a tattva, but that does not mean that it is atheist. It is simply silent about God. That is because it is not a treatise on God, it is a treatise on Prakriti and her relationship with purushas. Similarly Jamini's Mimamsa sutras are not a treatise on God either, they are a treatise on the word meaning of the mantras and rituals. If even we grant that they were originally atheist schools of thought, they are definitely not now. Samkhya was merged into Vedanta by medieval times and ceased to exist as an independent school and Mimamsa was merged into Vedanta in the late middle ages and ceased to exist as an independent school. Therefore, if there ever was an atheist school of Hindu philosophy, it certainly does not exist now.

Rejecting God, reincarnation, soul etc in Hinduism would be akin to rejecting Jesus in Christianity and Mohammed in Islam. That would excommunicate one from the religion.

Let me also put it this way.
There are some in my culture who believes that it is an inviolable part of Hinduism that a new wife has to enter her new home holding tightly onto a live fish. in her right hand and a earthern pitcher filled with water in her left hand. Now its fine if someone is genuinely interested in doing this, but forcing people to do such things by saying they are necessary rituals is a form of superstition masquerading as Hinduism. Many such less benign forms of tradition exist. It is perverse as to how a religion whose goal is to free the self has filtered down and watered down to such a level that many people have become slaves to traditions that are mostly sui generis. The situation was obviously worse earlier this century. I find atheism to be the reasonable and correct response to such pitiful versions of Hinduism. Sometimes when thick dirt and grime has encrusted a valuable antique piece, a strong acid solution is the answer. So as a pragmatic chemist, I keep a few bottles in my storehouse to be used when I deem necessary. Atheism is like such bottles of acid. Its also useful to remove weaknesses in my own beliefs as well. Think of it as the whetstone of the mind. I always recommend being periodically skeptical about the things that one believes most in and actively seeking to dis-confirm them.

Thus I value atheism as I find atheism to be useful. Is there any other reason to value something? But I am not an atheist, and neither am I theist. Beliefs and methodologies of belief formation and testing are there to aid my explorations of truths about my own self and the world I am immersed in, to deepen my grasp of them and to imbibe new realizations such truths in my character and activity. Beliefs are there to aid me and serve me on this journey, I am not a slave to them, neither is my identity confined within its quarters. I pursue Hinduism as I find within its ambit (and also Buddhism), ideas, thoughts and actions that are amazingly rich and complex and efficacious to this end, and seek to share what I have found and learn from what others have found (through discussions and debates). If another Hindu pursues atheism for a period of time or Christianity for another period of time (which may last a few days to a few lifetimes even if you believe in reincarnation) there is no cause for concern at all. I believe, that in Hinduism, what matters is not what belief you are pursuing but how you are pursuing it. Has the belief become your master so that you are simply parroting things verbatim without any glimpse of self-driven thought? Or are you the master of the belief and are truly and actively using your own inner spirit, intellect and heart to properly and creatively make ideas from those beliefs your own? Are you simply improperly reflecting the understanding of others or have you used those materials to ignite yourself and become a source of light yourself? That is the only difference worth thinking about (in my opinion) and what class of beliefs and modes of believing aid you in that transformation. The specific beliefs are far less important.

My 2 cents.

Other Hindu-s here can freely say if I have said anything improper. All criticisms and comments welcome.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Nope genetically impossible. And if they do claim to be atheistic they were never a Hindu genetically in the first place.! Btw I just love posting nonsense here it makes me feeeeeel so nooooooormal!! Like I fit in!!!

I was a great theist Hindu while I was that. I am a great atheist Hindu now. I don't have to denounce the theism of other Hindus to prove that I am an atheist Hindu. Some nonsense is endearing, yours as well as those of theist Hindus. Great.

The real question in Hinduism is not that whether a person is a theist or an atheist, the real question is whether a person is fulfilling his 'dharma' or not (duties to family, society, the nation or the world as a whole). One who follows his 'dharma' is certainly a Hindu.

"śreyān sva-dharmo viguṇaḥ, para-dharmāt sv-anuṣṭhitāt;
sva-dharme nidhanaḿ śreyaḥ, para-dharmo bhayāvahaḥ." BG 3.35

It is far better to discharge one's prescribed duties, even though faultily, than another's ways perfectly. Destruction in the course of performing one's own duty is better than engaging in another's way, for to follow another's path is horrendous.

 

[LuisDantas]

Im just making an educated guess. Im assuming in the past, atheist the word atheist didnt exist. Then it was pagan vs. X-believer. If atheist arose out of something, it wasnt the general "disbelief in god/s" but, like other terms, opposing the abrahamic god.

That is a very relevant matter to raise, IMO. Largely because of the emphasis of the Abrahamics on the importance of believing in God's existence, the idea that belief is a big deal has been imported into Dharmas that do not really have much of a place for it.

It is questionable whether the Devas are even suitable for belief as such. And it is just as questionable whether it is proper for Dharmi to presume to state whether a Deva "truly exists". Where would the authority to make such a claim come from?

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

Sorry for starting this debate and then not participating in it so far, I have just been occupied. Some interesting views shared so far, and I think the popular view so far that Hindus can be atheists or they can be anything they want. The problem I have with this view, it though it sounds pleasant to hear for our liberal modern minds, the same view by namesake is called "Charvaka" by Hindus in the philosophical tradition, which means sweet and pleasant sounding, it denotes the views of the Charvakas who were atheists and materialists. According to them there are no God/s, no soul, no afterlife, you only get one life and life is all about doing what your heart desires.

However, this system of philosophy or worldview(darsana) is considered nastika meaning heretical, but technically meaning anti-Vedic religion. It is recognised as a separate religion in its own right(in the Gita it is called asura dharma or demonic religion) just as Buddhism and Jainism are separate religions and also considered nastika. Hence, if Buddhism and Jainism are different religions from Hinduism and are mutually exclusive of one another, then it makes as much sense as being a Hindu Buddhist etc as a Muslim pagan or a Jewish Christian. Hence, one cannot be a Charvaka Hindu, that would be living a contradiction. Such a person is an oxymoron.

I referenced in the OP what the Bhagvad Gita says about atheists. The Bhagvad Gita is not just an ordinary or one of many texts in Hinduism, it enjoys the status of being practically the Bible of Hindus today. In the Indian state for example they make Hindus swear on oath on the Bhagvad Gita in a court of law. The Bhagvat Gita is considered the de facto scripture for the majority of Hindus. It is also part of the core canon of the Vedanta tradition which accounts for the majority of Hindu sects. It is the gospel of Lord Krishna, who is considered god incarnate by virtually all of Hindu sects, including Shaiva and Shakta sects. This preamble was to only give an idea to the readers of the central position this scripture takes in Hinduism.

Hence, the viewpoints of the Bhagvad Gita are authoritative for Hindus. Now let us look at what it says about atheists from Chapter 16 on the Yoga of divine and demonic:

6. There are two types of beings in this world—the divine and the demoniacal; the divine has been described at length; hear from Me, O Arjuna, of the demoniacal!

7. The demoniacal know not what to do and what to refrain from; neither purity nor right conduct nor truth is found in them.

8. They say: “This universe is without truth, without a (moral) basis, without a God, brought about by mutual union, with lust for its cause; what else?” 1

9. Holding this view, these ruined souls of small intellects and fierce deeds, come forth as enemies of the world for its destruction.

10. Filled with insatiable desires, full of hypocrisy, pride and arrogance, holding evil ideas through delusion, they work with impure resolves.

11. Giving themselves over to immeasurable cares ending only with death, regarding gratification of lust as their highest aim, and feeling sure that that is all,

12. Bound by a hundred ties of hope, given over to lust and anger, they strive to obtain by unlawful means hoards of wealth for sensual enjoyment.

13. “This has been gained by me today; this desire I shall obtain; this is mine and this wealth too shall be mine in future.”

14. “That enemy has been slain by me and others also I shall slay. I am the lord; I enjoy; I am perfect, powerful and happy”.

15. “I am rich and born in a noble family. Who else is equal to me? I will sacrifice. I will give (charity). I will rejoice,”—thus, deluded by ignorance

1.6. Bewildered by many a fancy, entangled in the snare of delusion, addicted to the gratification of lust, they fall into a foul hell.

17. Self-conceited, stubborn, filled with the intoxication and pride of wealth, they perform sacrifices in name, through ostentation, contrary to scriptural ordinances.

18. Given over to egoism, power, haughtiness, lust and anger, these malicious people hate Me in their own bodies and those of others.

19. These cruel haters, the worst among men in the world,—I hurl all these evil-doers for ever into the wombs of demons only.

20. Entering into demoniacal wombs and deluded birth after birth, not attaining Me, they thus fall, O Arjuna, into a condition still lower than that!
​

This perhaps the strongest condemnation I have seen of atheism in any world religion. The irony here is, this is considered the gospel of God incarnate Lord Krishna by Hindus. As a Hindu I should be sharing these views about atheists, as this is what my religion teaches me and as I consider Krishna to be an avatar of the supreme God Vishnu, I cannot doubt his words. Now, those Hindus who are doubting this, can they really be considered Hindus or just Charvakas masquerading around as Hindus?

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

I knew atheists who attended Temple when I was younger. Hinduism is cultural as well. It's sort of like being Half Jewish in a sense.
Cultural Hindus exist and many seem to be athiest. But they attend ceremonies out of a sense of duty towards their parents and to uphold the honour of their family.

I would like to later reply individually to the posts people I have made, but I wanted to just single this out in particular, because I recalled this verse from the BG cited above as soon as I read it:

16.15-16:

I am rich and born in a noble family. Who else is equal to me? I will sacrifice. I will give (charity). I will rejoice,”—thus, deluded by ignorance

Bewildered by many a fancy, entangled in the snare of delusion, addicted to the gratification of lust, they fall into a foul hell.
​

Simply attending or performing a temple ceremony does not make you Hindu. If that is the case people of other religions who go to Hindu temples have become Hindu just by doing so. Hindus who are Hindu by birth and attend temples and perform temple rituals out of a sense of duty to their parents or heritage but have no belief in them, cannot be considered members of Hinduism.

​

 

[crossfire]

I'm a bit confused here. Here are the first 5 verses of chapter 16 of the Bhagavad Gita.

The Blessed Lord said: Fearlessness, purification of one's existence, cultivation of spiritual knowledge, charity, self-control, performance of sacrifice, study of the Vedas, austerity and simplicity; nonviolence, truthfulness, freedom from anger; renunciation, tranquility, aversion to faultfinding, compassion and freedom from covetousness; gentleness, modesty and steady determination; vigor, forgiveness, fortitude, cleanliness, freedom from envy and the passion for honor-these transcendental qualities, O son of Bharata, belong to godly men endowed with divine nature.
Arrogance, pride, anger, conceit, harshness and ignorance-these qualities belong to those of demonic nature, O son of Prtha.
The transcendental qualities are conducive to liberation, whereas the demonic qualities make for bondage. Do not worry, O son of Pandu, for you are born with the divine qualities.
​

I have seen atheists with these qualities of divine nature, and I have seen theists with the qualities listed being of demonic nature.
Can this discrepancy be attributed to how the particular individual (of either divine or demonic nature) defines "god?"