Three Idiots

Poorva Mimansa is more atheistic than both Buddhism and Jainism.


Let us see Jainism do not entertains concept of god and Buddha remained his silence both for god and deities.

Later Buddhist rejected god but not deities, Jainism do believes in deities. But in Jainism these deities are not Siddhartha and can only bestow material gains. In Mahayana even god can be believed, and in Hinayana and even in Theravada deities are not rejected although here not much importance is given. 

That, in Buddhism deities are symbolic is a modern interpretations or propaganda , a more traditional Buddhist believes in the ontological existence of deities. although deities are not so important in Dhamma.
In Poorva Mimansa, the earliest document we have is Sabara Bhasya, a commentary on Mimansa Sutra attributed to Rishi Jaimini. Here only, the ontological existence of deities is refuted when Sabara writes , 'the vedic gods are mere words and sounds ' and 'there existence is not outside of vedas ' .No modern propaganda , no atheistic interpretations done as done to Adwaita Vedanta. But the earliest resources itself is clear on its stark atheism. Later Mimansak remains doubtful over deities and Mimansak like Kumarila and Prabhakara wrote extensively to refute the concept of god but maintained silence over deities.

In a nutshell Mimansa was more atheistic in origin over  Buddhism and Jainism  Today Vedanta is more famous among Vedics and many too find Adwaita if they leave Buddhism and Jainism , more interesting than Mimansa, not that mimansa is lesser than any other.

Bhagvan Buddha

"Kamma is a failed theory and nibbana is an unproven hypothesis. These are speculation, there is no speculation of truth. One should relate to these as little as possible. The world is best explained the way its perceptible"

The philosophy often dealt with cosmology, existential and moral issue. Apart from touching the last part to some extent the Buddha remaining his 'arya chuppi' on all others, is one of the greatest philosopher of human history? You got to be kidding me! Can silence create knowledge?
Can you claim that some guy knows the 'theory of relativity', if you yourself do not have knowledge of it beforehand? This is a limited form of knowledge, isn't it applicable to 'unlimited' knowledge? How could Buddha ( Mahavira, Krishna ) be claimed of omniscience when no one else is omniscient! These people just became witty enough to tackle your question (as Mahavira ),  diplomat it with all possible answer ( as Krishna ) or even worst call the question itself 'un-worthy', and maintain there 'arya silence'.

Buddha ji enjoying kheer while all others are drooling! 

Everything happens with chance. The kamma theory is just non-conceivable bakwas. There is possibility that a killer will live a fantastic life. That is why we need law, police, spies and punishments. So the origin of universe is just by chance and probability. If we apply kamma, before existence there was no act, hence no consequences, then this world should never have originated. Even if kamma started acting after origination, then the world should have uniformity, which the world do not have.
We live for joy, pleasure and procreation. To make our life more joyous, pleasurable and happy we should work for it. With work we will get wealth, power and possession  With wealth and all and there rightful injunction we should have pleasure in varied sense With pleasure we achieve satisfaction, the true emancipation not nibbana.
"Will you stop eating wheat because it comes with husk?"
Being indifferent to pleasure and pain only means that one has gone crazy. Not everyone is born asexual buzz kill  Its true that one should not leave pleasure for a promised pleasure in heaven! Then how can we renounce pleasure, love and affection and start living like a stone for something 'nibbana' or liberation?
This 'nibbana' is too like a state of  stone. Then they say that you do not get it right, people get knowledge by sense organs, with perception. These speculation and levels are neither perceptible nor felt! How can someone claim that these senses evolved with nature can not perceive what they do? Is not this like saying 'I can smell with ears, or I can taste with skin'? This condition, level or state you promise is not pleasureful in finite sense how can one be happy in that? Are stones happy? One should avoid joy when it brings more pain or when avoiding it brings more pleasure, but is not he fool who gives away pleasure for some transcendental position. Are not Buddhist, Nirgranth, ascetics and Sanyasies deluded?