Never explicitly saw this distinction anywhere else:

An achristian is a constricted kind of atheist. They are sure they do not believe in the Christian god, but their experience with religion is generally limited to a Monotheistic Daddy God, so the way they express their disbelief is to argue against Christianity and the Bible, essentially acting as apologists against their erstwhile faith. Generally, Christianity is the religion in which achristians were raised to believe, or a predominant faith in their culture. In some cases, as with many arguments that have their inspiration in something more than just logic, there may be some degree of anger or resentment underlying an achristian’s mindset. (As it happens, a lot of religious people seem to think Western atheists are exclusively achristian and think they can pick them off with a different faith like Islam. Such people do exist, but are far less common than said would-be proselytizers think.)

Achristians differ from atheists in general by focusing particularly on the Bible and Christian doctrine, rather than other religions or theism as a whole. The term generally refers to those who actively profess and encourage disbelief in Christianity. Because of this, achristians are sometimes called “anti-Christian”, although it is generally considered derogatory (especially due to its similarity to “Antichrist“).

Achristianity is sometimes a phase someone who was raised to “believe” goes through on their path to not caring any more – they are still immersed in their own personal reasons for leaving the tradition, and haven’t sorted out where they are going yet. Others see it as an imperative to get others to see things as they see them, and feel that fighting their ex-religion is tantamount to freeing the minds of those shackled by superstition. Furthermore, many newly deconverted Christians are more likely to talk about what they know – Christianity. For them Christianity is religion and that is what they want to fume about.

[edit] Other groups

There are many people from other religious cultures who no longer believe, and still spend a lot of energy railing against the tradition they were raised in or have been converted from. Presumably, these would be known as amuslims, abuddhists, ataoists, aconfucianists, etc. The word “anabrahamism” can refer to a particular rejection of all Abrahamic religions due to their shared ideological tendencies (including sectarian intrigues, sexual repression, orthodox dogmatism, etc.).

Some of the most striking examples of people who know enough about the problems of their previous religion are people who have left scientology (“ascientologists”), and then dedicate their lives to fighting it.[1]

Another good example is the Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain,[2] who maintain that: “…the increasing intervention of and devastation caused by religion and particularly Islam in contemporary society has necessitated our public renunciation and declaration.”[3]

he most striking examples of people who know enough about the problems of their previous religion are people who have left scientology (“ascientologists”), and then dedicate their lives to fighting it.[1]

Another good example is the Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain,[2] who maintain that: “…the increasing intervention of and devastation caused by religion and particularly Islam in contemporary society has necessitated our public renunciation and declaration.”[3]

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Achristian

I’ve been making the above distinction for quite some time.  This is also why I cannot take the vocal segments of the “atheist” movement seriously: The fact that you “lack belief” in the specific religion perpetrated on you during childhood/are largely ignorant of ANY religion outside of it, is insufficient grounds for….well, anything, really.

“Theism” is essentially a contentless slur, in that – as I’ve said before – there are vast differences between the various forms of “theism” – both as to what they implicitly/explicitly claim about the nature of their various “deities” and whether or not those “deities” even influence humanity at all.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theism

Observe the following types:

  • Monotheism.
  • Polytheism.
  • Pantheism and panentheism.
  • Deism.
  • Autotheism.
  • Value-judgment theisms.

Now, it should be obvious that arguments related to one variant (“monotheism”) will be (broadly) incompatible with discussions related to another variant (Polytheism).

As just one example: the (so-called) “problem of evil” only makes sense if you “smuggle in” the implicit/explicit claims made by Abrahamic Monotheists: Omniscience, omnipotence, omnibenevolence, etc.

If even ONE of these characteristics is dropped: The “Problem” of evil also collapses:

If “God” is only “semi-potent”, ()even to the extent of being “bound” by natural laws), then “He” can neither do – or prevent -every instance of “evil”.

If “God” is not “omniscient”, then “He” might very well not be in a position to prevent “evils” unknown to “Him”.

If “He” is not omnibenevolent — IE, if He “loves” some/hates others conditionally, then there is no “Problem of evil”, because it merely means that “God” only looks out for “His” friends.

You get the idea.

So long as the “Atheist” movement — especially as exemplified by the “New” atheists (Dawkins, etc.) confine their arguments/attacks to Abrahamic Monotheism in general , and (Fundie, Protestant) Christianity in particular — they will continue to be merely REACTIONARIES. 

What is needed is an  affirmative vision.  ESPECIALLY concentrating on question such as: What (if anything) SHOULD humanity’s response be, if/when we are confronted by “powerful” nonhuman intelligent entities of some kind?

Here’s the thing:

Given some of the more speculative notions coming out of “Transhumanist” circles, it isn’t (entirely) unreasonable to posit that Sufficiently advanced entities would be able to devise either some sort of “brain emulation”/”consciousness uploading” technology.

Combine that with the notion of “quantum computation”, and it isn’t (entirely) unreasonable to think that some such entities might be able to subject such “uploaded” minds to what amount to extremely complex VR scenarios.  This could even be done after the victim was “clinically” dead (but probably not past a later point where massive necrosis had set in at the cellular level).

Thus, sufficiently advanced entities might be able to  subject less advanced entities to some sort of “afterlife” scenario, if they chose to do so.

The question then becomes: Is the promise/threat of being subjected to such an “Afterlife” scenario WORTH what most religions implicitly — or explicitly – ask of their adherents?

More importantly: IF “they” can learn to do such things, that indicates that such things are possible – in which case, humans could learn do to those things, too.

So, why should less advanced entities bother “worshiping” more advanced ones?  Why shouldn’t humanity simply CONTINUE ADVANCING, and learn how to do such things ourselves?

 

 

 

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s