Well, yours and mine, if you like. I say a god who inflicts infinite torture for finite offences is not worthy of worship. What say you?

Ethical relativism be damned; if you defend such a villain, your moral judgement is questionable. — Banno

I’m Jewish. Therefore, I don’t think the god Christian’s worship is worthy of worship because I don’t believe he exists.

Still I don’t think Lewis makes a fair assessment of the god that Christians believe in. What Lewis is actually describing, imo, is his own view of god. A view many people share, the view that the Christian god is a genocidal-maniac-power-hungry-nutjob who will happily throw you in a pit of fire for eternity should you cross him.

And if you see god as such then you will surely label him a villain as you and Lewis have done. No argument there.

Where I think Lewis falters however is when he decides that we should question the moral character of Christians based not on their god as they see him and describe him and believe him to be, but on Lewis’s depiction.

Christians do not believe they are worshipping a “villain”. The god that Lewis describes is unrecognizable to them. Christians do not believe that god is responsible for all the pain and suffering in the world. It’s as simple and as complicated as that.


Another problem with his assertion that we should question their moral character is, Lewis doesn’t believe in god or Jesus or what Christianity teaches. He doesn’t believe that his soul is at risk of eternal damnation should he anger the Christian god or “deny Jesus”.

Christians do believe that. Many because they believe Jesus or god has spoken to them, many read their religious texts and it made sense to them, many had some other conversion experience which left them 1000% convinced god and Jesus exist, many were taught that since they were very little children and are scared to death to even question his existence.

Whatever the reason, Christians belief god and Jesus are real. They believe Heaven and Hell are real. Very very real!

Therefore, Lewis is able to look at god and Jesus without any fear or any reservation whatsoever and he can feel free to be as critical and judgmental as he wants to be in assessing god’s actions and behavior. And he does that brilliantly.

Many Christians literally can’t stomach criticizing their god even a little bit. Much less as harsh as Lewis has done. For whatever reason, (their upbringing, they’re too afraid, they think he is perfect..whatever). They just don’t.

The reality is Lewis nor anyone else will ever be able to know why every individual believes what he or she believes or even precisely what they believe or how they interpret religious texts.

If you find it useful and moral to judge a group of people based on something you don’t entirely understand, then you should do that. You should always do what you feel is morally right. Always.

Personally, I feel individuals and their religious beliefs are far too complicated and complex to just focus on what they believe their god might do to dead people as a means to judge everything about their moral character.

I’m trying to read the article — no, I hadn’t read it before — and I come to this:

He places people in a situation in which they must make a judgment that binds them for eternity, and he knows that some will be so inadequately informed that they will opt for an eternity of torment (or a state for which torment is an apt metaphor). — p. 233

Evidently David Lewis doesn’t know any Christians, and hasn’t so much as eavesdropped on any conversation among Christians, because no Christian ever talks this way. Christians don’t believe that you gather information and then make a decision about how you’d like to spend eternity; they believe you either open your heart to His grace or you deliberately shut Him out.

Whatever Lewis is talking about, it’s nothing remotely like what Christians in my experience actually believe.

He could leave incompatibilist freedom intact while doing far more luring and urging than he does. Assuming we have to make a choice, why must it be made through a glass darkly? God seems negligent at best.

Ugh. He sent His only begotten son here to die so that our sins might be forgiven, and Lewis says, “Big whoop.” And, again, grace: Christians believe God is constantly luring and urging us, offering us His love unconditionally, and reminding us that He will forgive any sin, all we have to do is ask.

From my mundane perspective, I may judge myself happy enough in my denial of God. Once I am fully informed, however, I will appreciate the grossness of my swinish satisfaction, and torment will be an apt description of my insubordinate condition.

Christians believe you are “fully informed” right now. What does Lewis mean? By “fully informed” he seems to mean, when he sees the afterlife with his own eyes, and finally knows what’s what. Such knowledge is irrelevant to Christians. This whole paradigm is wrong. No sensible evidence is needed because God is happy to speak to us directly, creator-to-soul, and does so all the time.

In this little section seems, Lewis addresses my “hell is a spiritual state” thing, but he interprets his experience as “contented atheism”, not something for which “torment” is an apt metaphor. But, of course, he’s just wrong about that. If there is a bliss surpassing all imagining that he knows not, then from that point of view, his contentment looks like torment.

I think there is a good question here, about why some people experience themselves as touched by God and some people don’t, but it’s nothing like this intellectualized business Lewis is on about.

I’ll try to read the rest, but the whole thing seems to me — and I’ve been an atheist at least my entire adult life — extremely shoddy and ill-informed.

,

"Tis a busy day, and you both deserve longer replies. But in the interim, it strikes me that you share in the view that christianity ought be judged only (or mainly) from a christian perspective; that seems to be what is implicit in the admonition to understand christianity before commenting.

I don't see why we should. First: not being a christian, one has no choice but to judge christianity from the outside. Also: which christianity are we to use as our stoa? There are so many, and each will provide a differing perspective. further: both Lewis and I have said that there may be those who consider themselves christian but deny the existence of eternal damnation, and that the argument does not apply to them except in so far as they admire those who do accept eternal damnation.

in so far as they admire those who do accept eternal damnation — Banno

You know, the way you say this, it’s as if a Christian might say, “I approve of the job God Almighty is doing.”

You see how ridiculous that is, right?

the view that christianity ought be judged only (or mainly) from a christian perspective — Banno

If you want to shun Christians because their ethical views don’t align with yours, have at it. But you want to find their faith wanting, without bothering to understand it. Indeed, there may be a barrier there: I’m not sure you can really understand that life without living it. I don’t, and I don’t, that’s all I can say.

I’m not sure you can really understand that life without living it. I don’t, and I don’t, that’s all I can say. — Srap Tasmaner

That could be partly true but I don't think you need to understand a life to understand where it is objectionable. After all (to change focus from Christianity for a moment) fundamentalist Islam likes to kill gay people - do we need to understand the life in order to understand and incorporate this perception of homosexuality? Surely, no.

The reality is Lewis nor anyone else will ever be able to know why every individual believes what he or she believes or even precisely what they believe or how they interpret religious texts. — laura ann

you want to find their faith wanting, without bothering to understand it. Indeed, there may be a barrier there: — Srap Tasmaner

I don't read either the article, nor @Banno's OP as an attempt to 'understand' why Christians think they way they do. We could invoke upbringing, group membership tokens, and cognitive biases to have that job done in a jiffy... I read it more as a simple ethical question. God is presented as behaving in ways which we humans think of as unethical (or at the very least ignoble). The Bible is quite unequivocal on those matters, no matter what might later be said about his many redeeming qualities. So we're left, no matter our actual beliefs, with a quandry to solve.

Is God beyond our petty and all too tellurian morality? But if so, then why follow his edicts, why pursue a place in heaven? Simply having created the place doesn't seem sufficient ( I don't follow the moral code of the architect every time I enter a new building).

Is the Bible perhaps a loose allegory, not to be interpreted so literally? But if do, then whence organised religion? If all that remains is a general message to be kind, share stuff, and forgive, it seems our ancestors of many thousand years ago already had that nailed. The message seems more like a wistful reminiscence than the bureaucratic edifice of scripture, sermon, authority and rite we see in modern Christianity.

Is the accusations that believing in God equates to approving of him misguided? Maybe, but this then raises the interesting moral question of doctrine/law vs morality. If Christians don't follow God's law in any way then I think we're back to the problem above (Christianity becoming a meaningless distinction from just 'nice'). If they do, then what are we to make of the relationship between morality and law? That the former should be subservient to the latter?

Understanding Christian psychology and discussing Christian ethics are two separate things. The OP, as a understand it, is about the latter.

don't read either the article, nor Banno's OP as an attempt to 'understand' why Christians think they way they do — Isaac

Sure. But there's nothing in philosophical about "They suck"

Hell is about divine justice. It's about bad people getting away with their crimes.

In the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus , it's about an oppressive class who is never punished for their sins while on earth.

More later, gotta go.

This discussion is tedious. Yes, there may be folk who call themselves christian who do not hold that god torments souls for eternity. But there are folk who do so hold, and the criticism in the Lewis article applies to them. — Banno

That's not what I'm talking about. What I'm saying is that you argue with fallacies. You take the part for the whole. As it is true, then the subject seems tedious to you. The tedious thing is that you use argumentative fallacies. You attribute as characteristic of religion what also appears in political and sports rhetoric, but you no longer like this and you go back to talking about what offends you.

But there's nothing in philosophical about "They suck" — frank

True. I hardly think that's a fair summary though.

It's about bad people [not?] getting away with their crimes. — frank

Is it. How do we know they're 'bad' people if the arbiter of justice must be divine. If we abdicate moral judgement to some higher authority, then it might be the 'good' people being punished, or we end up only tautologically concluding that it is 'the punished' who are punished.

For us to have faith that God will punish the 'bad' people we must also have faith that his notions of 'good' and 'bad' are similar to ours.

But if they're similar to ours, then what need do we have of scripture?

If they're dissimilar to ours (as the Bible seems to indicate), then why support them?

Those who do not believe in god, when they die, will be cast into eternal torment.

This is a punishment out of all proportion with the offence.

Christians hold that the person who inflicts this unjust punishment - God - is worthy of worship. — Banno

David Lewis may be good philosopher, but that quote above is unchristian.
No knowledgeable theologian or priest would ever say such a thing.

I understand that Christianity today is split into millions of dominations, no wonder philosophers use the fact of different teachings to construct dogma based on inconsistent teachings.

Is it. How do we know they're 'bad' people if the arbiter of justice must be divine. If we abdicate moral judgement to some higher authority, then it might be the 'good' people being punished, or we end up only tautologically concluding that it is 'the punished' who are punished. — Isaac

If I remember correctly, the original victims of the Jewish Hades or Gehenna were Gentiles and it wasn't eternal torment. Later they decided Jews could be punished too.

There's an incredibly poignant story here about oppression and the ways it twists the soul (so to speak.). It's sad that in the quest to shit on somebody else you folks are missing that story.

A Christian is a more-or-less well defined thing characterized mainly by a belief in Christ, and certain things about him. And no need at all to be one to understand, use, or appreciate the term. — tim wood

Ah, but there is the rub. The character, essence and teaching of Christ are up for interpretation. A bi-cycle (two wheels) is not for interpretation. Hence, a huge explanation, and supportive documentation is needed to sort out who is the true Christian. Sure enough: someone who is truly Christ-like. But the concept of likeness of Christ is undefinable, because it is interpretive.

I don't read either the article, nor Banno's OP as an attempt to 'understand' why Christians think they way they do. We could invoke upbringing, group membership tokens, and cognitive biases to have that job done in a jiffy. — Isaac

I like the use of “invoke” there: you pray to your gods, they pray to theirs.

Anyway, I haven’t argued for an explanation of Christians faith, only that you ought to know what something is before judging it.

And I have suggested that this may be difficult from an outside perspective, because faith is not just an opinion someone holds, but that’s just how Lewis discusses it. (A view held in relative ignorance.) If you must, you could say it’s a language-game you just don’t understand, and move on, but there’s no point in insisting that those playing it must be playing a game you do know, and playing it wrong.

We’re here because @Banno believes Davidson refuted incommensurability in all its forms, and that means religious experience must be translatable without loss into terms he can understand. I doubt that, but I don’t even see much effort being put into the translation.

Understanding Christian psychology and discussing Christian ethics are two separate things. The OP, as a understand it, is about the latter. — Isaac

I believe I made that point in the very paragraph of mine you were quoting, but your second sentence is clearly wrong: the OP presents an objection to Christian theology. No Christian is called upon to decide whether anyone else receives eternal reward or punishment; it is not only not an ethical choice they face, it is one they are, in so many words, warned against. As Lewis sees it, you do face such a choice for yourself — is that an ethical choice? — but are denied crucial evidence you would need to make an informed choice. I have suggested this is a ridiculous model of the experience of faith. Lewis’s principal point is that you might as well worship Hitler, but, and this should sound familiar, no Christian believes themselves to be in a position to evaluate God’s job performance.

Is God beyond our petty and all too tellurian morality? But if so, then why follow his edicts, why pursue a place in heaven? — Isaac

Because you have faith.

If, like me, you have no such faith, then move on. But my lack of understanding of someone’s faith is no objection to it.

Ah, but there is the rub. The character, essence and teaching of Christ are up for interpretation. — god must be atheist

From the perspective of somebody who is either not Christian or somebody who is in doubt or somebody who is agnostic yes, in that case interpretation is very much desired because it serves to search for God or to search for truth.

However from perspective of somebody who considers him self Christian knows that interpretation is the job of holly spirit. not because of blind faith but because that's fundamental to the teaching of Jesus who is the central figure of Christianity.

You provided yet another interpretation to compete with all the others, already given: "The search for meaning of Christianity is the meaning of Christianity." Thanks for proving my point. How many Christians would agree with you? Again this is an impossible question to answer, because we need to agree first on who a Christian is, and for that we need a definition, for waht we have precisely 2,930 different and widely differing ones...

How can you make sense of this, SpaceDweller?

Again this is an impossible question to answer, because we need to agree first on who a Christian is, and for that we need a definition — god must be atheist

It's actually simple to answer, a Christian believes in Jesus such that it does not deny it.

Are you saying there is a possibility of being Christian but not agreeing to his teachings? isn't that denial?

If not, then what would be definition of being a Christian according to your interpretation?

No, you are trying to hang an opinion on me, which does not fit.

But you failed this time. Just a declaration of one aspect of Christianity is NOT a definition. For instance, a car is blue.

How do you define "car"? By saying it is blue.

But blue does not define a blue car. An aspect of Christianity does not define who a Christian is.

Enough of this already. Blinded by faith. To you your religion is more important than logic and truth. I respect you for that, and I am exiting with these words -- please don't expect a reply from me again.

There's an incredibly poignant story here about oppression and the ways it twists the soul (so to speak.). It's sad that in the quest to shit on somebody else you folks are missing that story. — frank

Well do expand then. I'd hate to miss a good story.

But my lack of understanding of someone’s faith is no objection to it. — Srap Tasmaner

Oh no, religious/spiritual people will give you no such credit. To them, your lack of belief is the same as disbelief. If you're not with them, they say you're against them. They don't care about your reasons.

But why should I care?

Christians are specifically enjoined not to judge the state of another's soul. It seems to bother Lewis that they believe he will be judged, even if not by them. It bothers him that they "support" this judgy asshole in the sky, but Christians don't experience their faith as "supporting" God's decisions. They don't get a vote.

Ah, but there is the rub. — god must be atheist

Aiee! Either either-or or neither-nor. I lean to either-or. That is, most simply, that being a Christian (or pretty much anything else) is at some level either-or. You either are, or you are not. And to forestall objection, the alternative is that no criteria apply, and that a Christian (or pretty much anything else) is whatever anyone says it is, all contradictories included.

Those people most plausibly Christian express their beliefs as beliefs. And among the things they believe in are the divinity and resurrection of Jesus. Believe being the key word, failure of which to understand is fatal to understanding Christianity.

At the same time Christianity implies a lot of things, which, being taken on and adopted, can make a person Christian-like in some broad sense. Imo, most - not all - North Americans are Christian-like. But lacking that core belief and understanding, not Christian.

Confusing the two, which imo our @Banno and his Lewis have done, is simply a mistake. And it is no defense of Christianity to call him on it, but instead a summoning to greater accuracy and clarity.

Near as I can tell, being a Christian (which I cannot claim to be), is simple enough, just not-so-easy. And so the caveat is not here to beware of errors in religion, but rather errors in philosophy.

Christians don’t believe that you gather information and then make a decision about how you’d like to spend eternity; they believe you either open your heart to His grace or you deliberately shut Him out.
/.../
Christians believe you are “fully informed” right now. What does Lewis mean? By “fully informed” he seems to mean, when he sees the afterlife with his own eyes, and finally knows what’s what. Such knowledge is irrelevant to Christians. This whole paradigm is wrong. No sensible evidence is needed because God is happy to speak to us directly, creator-to-soul, and does so all the time. — Srap Tasmaner

What you're describing holds for those who were born and raised into Christianity, and then less or more stayed in it.

It doesn't hold for prospective adult converts to Christianity.

This is most evident in the Catholic RCIA program:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rite_of_Christian_Initiation_of_Adults

The Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults (RCIA), or Ordo Initiationis Christianae Adultorum, is a process developed by the Catholic Church for its catechumenate for prospective converts to the Catholic faith above the age of infant baptism. Candidates are gradually introduced to aspects of Catholic beliefs and practices. The basic process applies to adults and children who have reached catechetical age. [1]

/.../
For those who wish to join, an RCIA process - it is a period of reflection, prayer, instruction, discernment, and formation. There is no set timetable, and those who join the process are encouraged to go at their own pace and to take as much time as they need.

US bishops have said that the process "should extend for at least one year for formation, instruction, and probation" for those who have had no previous experience with living a Christian life.[5] However, "nothing ... can be settled a priori. The time spent in the catechumenate should be long enough—several years if necessary—for the conversion and faith of the catechumens to become strong."[6] For those who have some experience leading a Christian life, the process should be much shorter, "according to the individual case."[7]

Those who enter the process are expected to begin attending Mass on a Sunday, participate in regular faith formation activities, and to become increasingly involved in the activities of their local parish.

It's entirely different to approach Christianity as an adult as opposed to having been born and raised into it.

Prospective adult converts to Catholicism thus have to learn the Catholic doctrine, study the Bible, and other church literature. They have to approach the matter deliberately, consciously. For them, there is no question of merely "feeling things in your heart". And they are tested for their knowledge of doctrine.

The Catholics who were born and raised generally have relatively little knowledge of doctrine. The local Catholic priest told me that many can't even locate a passage in the Bible, ie. they don't know what the name and the numbers mean.

For such Catholics, it would probably be demeaning, to say the least, to have to pass the RCIA program. They would probably also see no point in it. I think it's because they fail to appreciate what it was to be born and raised into Catholicism.


In other Christian sects, there are also restrictions as to whether a prospective adult convert may get baptized into a certain curch and on what timeline.
So in general, Christianity is a lot more intellectual, deliberate for prospective adult converts than it is for those born and raised into it.

I like the use of “invoke” there: you pray to your gods, they pray to theirs. — Srap Tasmaner

Yes, indeed. Did you notice how I avoided using the word 'narrative'. I think I've grown.

I'm going to start at the end...

Is God beyond our petty and all too tellurian morality? But if so, then why follow his edicts, why pursue a place in heaven? — Isaac


Because you have faith. — Srap Tasmaner

Faith in what?

Faith that God exists? Faith that he is what the bible claims him to be? Faith that he's right about everything? These are three quite different faiths with quite different ramifications for the matter in question.

One can have faith that God exists and still need to address the issue I raised in my previous posts. His mere existence (even as the creator of the universe) does not necessitate that one either agree with or worship him.

If one has faith that God is right/good, then one still does not escape the final two questions. Is one's faith (one's feeling) that God is right according to one's own definition of 'right'? Faith is still some sort of a feeling, and more so it's a feeling that such and such... so we can still analyse the implications thereof.

Even if we imagine the extremes of a Christian entirely overcome by rapture, they will emerge with a deep and unshakeable faith that...

So It makes sense still to ask, of this faith, what is it a faith in. Is it that God is good, that God is right? Both these terms ('good' and 'right') have meanings which are embedded in human culture. I still don't see how our gloriously enraptured Christian escapes having to decide what to do about the fact that he now unquestioningly has faith that, say, God is good.

If God is described as doing something which our COG feels is not good, then what does he do. His faith that God is good is unshakeable. Not, as you rightly say, a decision he makes, but a foundational principle. He's still got to decide if God's version of good is different to his, or if his version of good is no longer to be trusted. Some decision has to be made as to how to handle the dissonance. If God orders the genocide of the children of Belial for worshipping false Gods, does that mean genocide is OK, or that God's playing by his own rules? If the latter, then what about heaven. Is that only a 'good' place by god's rules (lots of genocide and psalms), in which case is that where our Christian wants to be? These are questions, note, that still need answering even with a completely unshakeable faith that God is 'good'.

Or maybe the faith is that God is 'right'. That whatever he does or instructs is the right thing to do? But again, our Christian has to answer to what he means by 'right' in his unshakeable belief that God is it. 'Right' as in best for everyone concerned? Best in the long run?, Best for the chosen ones, but not the others? Best for God?

Alternatively I suppose, he could have faith that x is simply the right thing for him to do (where x is some Christian doctrine or other). That gets us around what 'right' and 'good' mean (for they're interpreted just as the person concerned means them), but then every action is simply laid out before them. what purpose do the scriptures and the sermons serve?

...I've run out of ways I can think of that a person could have faith, but I may not have scraped the pot. Have I missed what you mean by 'faith'?

We’re here because Banno believes Davidson refuted incommensurability in all its forms, and that means religious experience must be translatable without loss into terms he can understand. I doubt that — Srap Tasmaner

I doubt that too. @Banno and I have a difference of opinion about incommensurability, but I don't think it's relevant here. I'm trying to argue that we don't need to understand the nature of Christian belief to talk about the consequences and decisions for the Christian which result from believing that...

in summary...

no Christian believes themselves to be in a position to evaluate God’s job performance. — Srap Tasmaner

Agreed. But they are, regardless, in a position to have to decide what to do about that.

But why should I care? — Srap Tasmaner

Because they hold it against you. They may not burn you at the stakes, but they do believe you are a lesser being, less worthy of respect, less worthy of trust. It shows in how they treat you. And this can be bad for you.

As an example, I already described what things looked like for me back at school, and now with my Catholic neighbors.
In a work environment, I know Christians can become less than professional and even act in ways that are illegal on account of you not being one of them. For example, if something goes wrong at work, they could be more likely to blame you and to ignore any evidence to the contrary.

An of course in ordinary interpersonal relationships. Like having Christian relatives who don't eat what you cook because they don't trust you because you're a "heathen", who make promises to you and then casually don't keep them.

They have a fundamental distrust of you that negatively affects the interactions you have with them. It's a tedious way of interacting, and they blame you.

Christians are specifically enjoined not to judge the state of another's soul.

And yet that has never stopped them from doing so.

It seems to bother Lewis that they believe he will be judged, even if not by them. It bothers him that they "support" this judgy asshole in the sky

I think what Lewis is getting at is his/the unreflected, unprocessed, unnamed concern that he is living in a dangerous universe and that ultimately, he can't do anything about it.

faith that... — Isaac

But this is a question: can faith be captured without remainder in propositions? I can't imagine any believer agreeing to that.

But, as you say, there may be more to faith than the propositions, but there are still the propositions: the believer must take some attitude toward them, and we are entitled to do so as well.

That's persuasive, on its face, but I don't think it can be right. Articles of faith don't hook up to whatever proposition-handling machinery you might imagine being handy elsewhere. (Gathering evidence, testing, refining, etc.) I mean, there is such a thing as theology, but I don't understand what that's supposed to be either! Hovering over all this is the problem -- as it would seem to a non-believer -- of revelation, which "links" to propositional knowledge in, let's say, a non-standard way... Everything about how a believer might characterize their faith -- much less their God! -- using ordinary logico-linguistic means, will be very misleading if you don't share the underlying experience. That's my hunch, anyway.

frank

Well do expand then. I'd hate to miss a good story. — Isaac

Oppressed people long for revenge. Their culture told them Divine justice is evident in this world because that's just the definition of good: to be blessed here and now for obedience to God's will

Time goes by, they get crushed into the dirt over and over so Hades is adapted to provide the solution. Revenge in the hereafter.

So basically, you can't condemn these people without condemning anyone who wants revenge.

I don't think anybody's reading this far, so merry Christmas!

But why should I care?
— Srap Tasmaner

Because they hold it against you. — baker

But why should I care?

What do you imagine as the remedy here? I already don't share their faith, so reasons for me not to have no purpose. Must I "deprogram" them? Why? So that I don't feel judged by them? Why should I care?

Well, if you have no issue with the practical problems that their distrust for you may cause for you (anything from career setbacks to damaging your property to killing your pets), then I don't really know what to say.

Do you not fear their revenge for offending them and their God with your atheism?

Many Christians literally can’t stomach criticizing their god even a little bit. Much less as harsh as Lewis has done. For whatever reason, (their upbringing, they’re too afraid, they think he is perfect..whatever). They just don’t. — laura ann

That's an interesting observation, are you saying Jews or Muslims allow criticizing God more than Christians?

Do you not fear their revenge for offending them and their God with your atheism? — baker

True atheist does not defend atheism.

There are 2 kinds of atheists, those who don't believe in God and those who believe there is no God, they are a sort of believers.

You see, those who believe there is no God will defend atheism and sometimes attack those who believe in God, while those who just don't believe don't give a sh* about what believers believe, they simply don't believe God exists.

Therefore if you ever see someone "revenging" at atheists, it must be defense of their own faith rather than attacking atheists.

It's easy to spot both kinds of atheists, some of them judge, others don't, so who is taking the revenge?

There are 2 kinds of atheists, those who don't believe in God and those who believe there is no God. — SpaceDweller

Sure. But I learned the hard way that to theists, this distinction doesn't matter. To them, lack of belief is the same as disbelief.