Veil of Fire

Hopefully as long as nobody brags or plans, this thread can stay open because the topic in and of itself is an interesting moral-type thing. This is a spin-off thread from 'making Helen cry' in Humor/Jokes. Not intended to be a continuation, merely a discussion of what ethics apply. Particularly with entities such as BaptistBoard.

This is a lose-lose situation.

If we fight back against their slander and lies, in whatever means beyond sitting in ivory towers going "tsk tsk, that's not true!", we lose personal credibility and look 'immature'.

However, if we take the moral highground (rather ironically) and leave them alone, we may maintain personal and group credibility, but we get the crap kicked out of us propaganda-style, unopposed, since they don't give to craps in the diharreah pool about group credibility.

I, personally, am not the kind of pagan that gets bonus points in Valhalla for dying honorably.

Helen said:
That's a good point.

I respond, however, by saying the people who BaptistBoard and other such sites represent are absolutely no different than the Muslim fundamentalists, with the exception that the Muslims at least have some balls.

Both an al-Queda Muslim and a Southern Baptist would kill me if they thought they could get away with it. The only difference being the Baptist would smile to my face then shoot me from behind, and run like a rabbit on exctacy, while the al-Queda Muslim would shoot me point-blank in the nose and wait proudly to be arrested.

What does that have to do with anything? Well, al-Queda doesn't have an internet message board where I can try to make life more frustrating for them and/or bring them a step closer to an early heart attack.

But yeah, sure, I'll freely admit that my perspective is quite a bit skewed. I don't have to put up with Muslims costing me a job, tearing bumper-stickers off my car, throwing bricks through my friends' windows, and tearing down my dorm-room-door art. I've never been physically assaulted by a Muslim. I've never been threatened by a group of Muslims while on my way to classes.

Thus, I tend to hold my most extreme eminity for the threats I see, feel, and hear on a day-to-day basis rather than the ones that resurface once every five years or so. Which leads me to cheer on acts of pettieness against those day-to-day threats, in a sort of passive-agressive manner.

I ate Pascal's Wafer

Well, I think it's unethical to an extent. While I don't think we should remain quiet and let them do what they want to us, I also don't think we need to go out of our way to torture them. If the website is open to all, we could (and maybe should) go there and educate people about our beliefs. For example, I went to one Christian board for a few months, and I managed to clear up some misconceptions about Atheism and make some good friends while I was at it. I no longer post at the boards, but one of the mods emails me from time to time to ask if a particular viewpoint (usually from a troll) is universally held among Atheists, or if it's just that person. I think it's possible to make a bigger impact on people if we treat ourselves accordingly and don't try to make people angry. Pissing them off doesn't help our situation any.

I also don't think we should sneak into websites that don't include us. The American Atheists website is supposed to have a discussion board running in the near future, and I don't think they're going to allow Christians to post. It's basically there for moral support (someone correct me if I'm wrong). We wouldn't like Christians coming in pretending to be Atheists, messing around and angering people, and then leaving. Why should we do that to them? I say that if they want a discussion board all to themselves, let them have it. We can do no good by sneaking in there and causing problems. Then instead of having them sneak up behind you and run away after shooting you, they will be standing right alongside the Muslim and proudly shoot you. We should cut our losses and come up with more mature ways to gain acceptence.

To quote Dennis Miller, these are just my opinions, I could be wrong.

-Nick

braces_for_impact

Hmmmm...I have to agree. If it's a public board, then by all means, stop in, be respectful, show you're educated and can treat people well. By that act alone you've already destroyed many theists preconception of an atheist. I haven't posted to many christian boards, but when I have I find it helpful to to ask questions, and make broad statements at first, and to not reveal my atheism unless asked. I don't do this to be dishonest, I do it to make people think. Sometimes, you can really shock people out of their misconceptions when they find out you are an atheist. This works in real life I have found as well.

As for sneaking into theist only boards, I see no reason to do so, it would be dishonest of me to post as a theist on these boards, and disrespectful of me to do so posting as an atheist. The largest reason I'm an atheist in the first place is because I value honesty as one of the highest virtues, so for me, this isn't an option.

excreationist

Being a badly behaved atheist on any board would lower people's respect for atheists. If you pretend to be a theist that's ok as far as atheist PR goes... as long as they never find out the truth!

Arrowman

I think the most relevant consideration here, is - how do your actions affect your fellow atheists? It's always "unethical" to visit a message board solely for the purpose of disruption - but IMHO it becomes "bad unethical" as you put it, when your actions have a negative effect on other people whose welfare is important to you.

If you're going to visit a public board, then I think it would be unethical to do so for the sole purpose of disruption - because it causes trouble for your fellow atheists by reinforcing negative stereotypes, and achieves nothing positive to balance that.

If you're going to sneak in to a private board (ie, pretending to be a theist to beat the membership rules) then I think that, too is unethical because everyone on the internet has the right to set their own "rules for guests" whether you ike them or not. And again, it becomes "bad unethical" when you affect other people (ie, you get caught, and the negative stereotype gets reinforced again).

I don't think there's any point to be made, or anything to be achieved, by participating in theist discussions for any other purpose than presenting a "reasonable atheist" point of view (which I ate Pascals Wafer seemes to have achieved to a high degree - well done on remaining "atheist consultant" to that board - how cool! And kudos to them as well!).

I participated in the Baptist Board for some time prior to the "atheist purge" and I always tried to abide by their rules - it was hard at times, but it was the price of conversing with "the other side" and I believe both sides (including me) benefited from it. If the rules had been tightened to the point where I felt I had to go beyond "being polite" to "compromising my views", then I would have left.

(Helen from the BB once accused me of being two-faced in my different postings on the BB and here; I pointed out to her that I was merely modifying my behaviour on the BB to suit the house rules; not deliberately concealing anything. She didn't reply to that - but then Helen rarely does go beyond the second round of a discussion )

[btw Thanks for referring to the "Making Helen Cry" thread - I'm not that much of a saint that I didn't enjoy it, but it it's still "bad unethical" imho.]

I once snuck in to the ICR cre/evo board masquerading as a creationist. It was interesting to see how long I got away with it. Finally one of the admins asked me the question, because some of the other posters had begun to suspect (Darwin knows how; I must have started to make sense ) I answered truthfully and was promptly banned. C'est la vie. It was hilarious, though, to see how many evolutionists remained undetected. But I'm not proud of that deception - I defend it by saying that my motives were not to disrupt, but only to investigate and learn.

[ July 02, 2002: Message edited by: Arrowman ]

[ July 02, 2002: Message edited by: Arrowman ]</p>

Arrowman

Oh, btw - about Baptists and Muslims.

That is a grossly unfair characterisation. And you are not comparing apples with apples - you are comparing an "al-Queda Muslim" (ie, an avowed extremist and killer) with a "Southern Baptist" (ie, any member of that group of churches). Try leaving out the words "al-Queda" and see if it still makes sense.

I "know" many Southern Baptists from my time on the BB. Some I like, some I loathe. Some I hold in contempt for their ignorance and bigotry, some I respect for their tolerance and open minds. But none of them are killers. If you think "a Southern Baptist would kill me if they got the chance" is a fair characterisation, then perhaps you should be visiting more fundy boards - you need to learn.

emphryio

I've deleted my post because it constitutes planning.

[ July 02, 2002: Message edited by: emphryio ]</p>