|Going One God Further|
|Articles to not believe in|
An achristian is a constricted kind of atheist. Achristians do not believe in the Christian god, but their experience with religion is generally limited to the Christian interpretation of God i.e. the monotheistic omnipresent patriarc god, so they express their disbelief by arguing against Christianity and the Bible. Generally, Christianity is the religion achristians were raised to believe or is a predominant faith in their culture. In some cases, as with many arguments inspired by 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 that 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 this is generally considered derogatory (especially due to its similarity to "Antichrist").
Achristianity is sometimes a phase someone 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.
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.
Another good example is the Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain, 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."
Achristianity, Atheistm and Anabrahamism
While achristians differ from atheists due to the particular focus over on the Bible in particular, there is the fact that many atheists did from backgrounds and cultures influenced heavily by Christianity. Given Chrisitanity's dominance in philosophy, to where the Christian god is usually viewed as the "default" way of the capital G god, this leads to the question on how many atheists are actually achristians. After all, how many of the arguments made in atheism really apply only to Christianity and not say other faiths.
Of course there are atheists from other faiths as noted above. However, most of the examples known and arguments considered are given from the perspective of the Abrahamic faiths. Perhaps it would be more accurate to wonder how many atheists are actually just "anabrahamists", given the shared connection between them. Combine this with the massive cultural influence by both Christianity and Islam in world history, it would be unsurprising that most atheists would be influenced by one of those faiths. Of course, this then leads to the question if they are then just "anabrahamists" rather than atheists. How important this is practice is debatable though it does show off the hidden biases and the question on how well the arguments hold up when expanding the horizon. Pedantic? Possibly, but if the non-Abrahamic faiths are excluded from the argument because they aren't considered "true" religions, what are the implications there?