Early in July / end of June an internet buddy (he happens to be a ranking police officer in a mid-western state) and I started a Post Rapture Pet rescue service.

It got so much publicity the first week on the net it brought our site down and we had to buy additional band-width. check it out: http://www.eternal-earthbound-pets.com/

My wife said it was unethical; that I was taking advantage of the religiously afflicted / terminally deluded.

My position , obviously, is completly different. I contend it would only be unethical (and illegal) if the Rapture happened and I did not render the service for which the Christian subscribers paid. But, I have every intent of satisfying that contract, rescuing their pets, should the rapture occur. I even have a cadre of volunteer atheist pet rescuers enlisted in the states for which we sell coverage.

Besides, doesn't giving peace of mind to the mindless count as a good thing?

So what's your position?
- Am I being unethical because I am catering to the belief's and needs of the religious?
- Does the fact that I don't accept the rapture as real make this in and of itself unethical?
- How does this offering differ from providing tornado insurance to someone who lives in an area that gets a tornado once every 200 years, but who insists they want to pay for that insurance?


(PS: no, sorry...I won't divulge any info vis-a-vis actual sales or clients)

Views: 95

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Nate said: That's all I was trying to say, camel. I'm sure you meant well.

... and if you said it without calling names, I would have replied as I did to dentro, with respect. And if you read those replies you'll see I did not "mean well" at all. I was making a point, a retort to his proselytizing platitude.

But the recipient was of good humor, understood it, and took it in stride.

For what it's worth, all the kids down at the BK love your book

Nate, you work with very perceptive kids. ;)

Nate said: That's all I was trying to say, camel. I'm sure you meant well.

... and if you said it without calling names, I would have replied as I did to dentro, with respect. And if you read those replies you'll see I did not "mean well" at all. I was making a point, a retort to his proselytizing platitude.

But the recipient was of good humor, understood it, and took it in stride.

I get it now. So what you're saying is that it's ok to be disrespectful if you're trying to make a point. But it's not ok to be disrespectful to a camel being disrespectful to a theist.

You're also saying that it's good that the theist disrespected by the camel reacted to the disrespect with "good humor, understood it, and took it in stride" but it's beyond the capacity of the camel to do the same when another was simply emulating the camel, "making a point, a retort to his [canned FSM] platitude".

I'm always willing to learn.
I doubt you're capabile of learning, Nate. You "get" nothing.
I question whether you have the intellectual ability to interpret things as they are written. You've demonstrated a deficiency in that area over and over in post here. But I shall endeavor to help you.

i was referring to your calling me an asshole. Thus, you are entitled to any respect. Thats not to say I'm NOT an asshole, afterall, its in the eye of the beholder. But hardly a basis for respectful exchange between two members. hell, I didnt even call that theist an asshole.
But this is your typical modus operandi, followed by your defensivenes as above..

That you feel it your duty to defend a theist from a FSM platitude, offered in good fun and with a point, that you found "disrespectful" ; whereas you saw no disrespect from the theist's platitudinous offfering to an atheist, proves my point:

- You either can't or don't want to see it; or

- you prefer not to acknowledge it, because you're a disengenuous, Uh... what was the word you used? Oh yeah...asshole; and/or

- because this kind of inane meaningless challenge to my posts is all you seem to have in your repetoir.

This much anyone reading your posts can learn.

Hump - this kind of nasty shit is why I haven't been on A/N in the past month.

And now I won't be back. Geez louise.

It's NOT an ethical service, okay? I was gonna stay out of it but you're being so unnecessarily rude to Nate and others I gotta speak my mind.

I was raised to be a faith healer and "healed" many people when I was a believer. Now that I am NOT a believer, now that I know the people I "healed" were delusional, it would be UNethical of me to continue to ply healing services. You said earlier that you didn't plant their rapture fear, and that's true. I didn't plant their belief in faith healing. It would still be unethical of me to make money off of faith healing, knowing full well it wasn't doing any good.

It's the same as Benny freaking Hinn.
sorry you feel that way.
Unfortunately, Nate seems to have issues with me that I just can't allow to go without response. Its been that way since I got here.
If you scroll back, you'll see the initial epithets are not of my making.

That this service isnt ethical in your eyes is fine with me. It seems to have an even split.

anyway, sorry youre upset with me.
Aw Hump, ya know I like you. That's what's so frustrating. It's happened over and over again that two atheists I like and enjoy talking with get into some big public flame war on the Nexus. It's just ... not fun anymore. I'm all for debating theists but this "I speak for A/N" "Why is this topic posted? I'm so sick of it" and "let me follow you around from discussion to discussion so we can air our dirty laundry" shit has got me bummed out.

In high school I refused to join a clique and spent most of time alone (or with the stoners, who were kind of a hodge podge of all the cliques). It feels like A/N has kind of deteriorated into a tit-for-tat "oooh look at me" flame fest. It's not fun, it's not edifying, and it doesn't put a smile on my face.

So, you (and Nate, and everybody else frankly) are more than welcome to come hang out on my blog. I'm just... sick of the stupid. I don't know or care who started it. I only have one kid just so I get to avoid picking sides. I HATE picking sides. So I pick bye-bye.
It would only be unethical if you didn't actually plan on following through.

I understand itall. I'm not here to have flame wars with fellow atheists. It does seem to come to that from time to time with some who take issue with my anti-theism and take no prisoner attitude with theists.

If I alone am the reason you are leaving, you stay, and I'm gone.

Just say the word.
No. This isn't even egregious comparatively.

I really LIKE the fact that atheists encompass so many different views/walks/responses to theism. I respect that very few atheists are as anti-theistic as I am. I accept that most atheists aren't *fascinated* by cults and obsessed with the same laws and causes that I am.

There's just been quite a lot of fighting, back-biting and tit-for-tat in my opinion. I recognize I'm real sensitive to fighting and arguing because of my childhood, so it's possible other people aren't even bothered. I probably overreacted a bit. I just don't enjoy coming here anymore, and that makes me kinda sad because I really like the idea of the Nexus. And I really want to be able to in good conscience send other atheists over here as a place to network and make friends. But if the same four or five dominant voices (not actually - much - in this thread) keep swatting down every new person, especially new atheists who might still hold some crazy beliefs (fear of hell, belief in crystals or the paranormal, belief in an afterlife) then no one is going to feel welcome and it'll become just Felch's backyard. And while I can appreciate a crotchety approach to life and be cantankerous myself at times, I find it wearying. So, I can come here if I wanna get into a good verbal sparring, but if I want a "home" for my online atheism, I'll have to take it elsewhere. So no, your conversation with Nate wasn't the sole thing. I just wish this community lived up to my hopes for it, but it's possible they were unrealistic to begin with.
I'm with you Angie.

Lots of people in this thread have had differing opinions without it causing a flame war. It's proof civility can and should be the norm.

I'll think twice about your well stated points here before I type my replies to antagonoistic comments in the future. Maybe others will follow suit, and this forum can take on a better tone.

I strongly disagree with your "take no prisoner" approach to dealing with our fellow human beings, no matter how deluded or misguided they may be. If we're the truly enlightened and mentally free people that we claim to be, we have no reason to see theists as enemies on a battlefield but rather as the wounded victims of indoctrination, in need of the healing powers of reason. But I respect that your opinion is your opinion. You have reasons for your views as I have reasons for mine. I will steer clear of your discussions, affording you the opportunity to express your thoughts more freely. I ask in return, please, that you reconsider your references to those taking a different approach as "accommodationists".
Because really? "Appeasers" is a much easier word to say.

(Kidding! Just trying to lighten the tone)



Update Your Membership :




Nexus on Social Media:


© 2017   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service