Should the Atheist Be Selling This Service?

Does the fact that Centre would be the first to say “I personally do not think that the rapture will ever happen, and I would hope that no one else does either – anyone who does think it will happen believes in something ridiculous” change anything? John Edward would never say that contacting the dead is ridiculous. The difference between the two seems to be that people going to Centre are fully-informed (they know Centre does not claim the rapture will happen, but they believe it and act accordingly) while people going to Edward are actively lied to and manipulated.

That’s how I see it, anyway… though it *is* a thorny issue that deserves thought. I’m more than willing to be convinced otherwise.

What makes it ethical, to me, is that he’s basically saying, “Hey, I’m admitting I could be wrong, and here’s how it’ll help you, and you know I don’t believe it’ll ever happen.” He’s not duping them with some idea that he believes it’s real (a la Edwards).

If only Christians would admit that atheists could be right. I mean, fine, let’s agree to disagree, but at least have the humility to say, yeah, you there, with the lack of invisible god, you could end up being right and I’m not going to KNOW until we’re dead.

Ethical? Of course! Like said above by Revyloution, all cards are on the table. From their FAQ:

Q: Do YOU believe in the Rapture.
A: As atheists we do not hold beliefs in the supernatural or a divine being. Thus, we do not believe in the Rapture. However, we respect the beliefs of others and are open to the possibility that our perspective could possibly be wrong.

I think he’s more like Penn and Teller. They refer to what they do as magic tricks and call themselves magicians, but at the same time they’re completely upfront about the fact that what they do isn’t real. Sometimes they show you how they did the trick, and for another trick Penn tells you how it’s done before Teller performs it.

I’m a Christian but I don’t believe in the Rapture. Can I sign up? I could use some extra cash. Can one sign up for more than one pet?

No less ethical than cigarette companies … oh wait

I agree with just about everyone in this panel. You don’t get your money back at the end of the year for buying car insurance if you didn’t have a crash. Also we do not believe in the rapture, but the people that want the service do. If we are wrong, and there is a God then all of us will be left behind, and someone should care for all those unattended pets.

I see absolutely no ethical issue with this. To me, the issue is a lack of deception and a willingness of people to purchase this type of “insurance”.

The entire insurance industry is based on this exact concept: They are betting that you will pay your premiums and will never need their services (flood, fire, earthquake, etc.) en masse.

I guess that he could always plan to do what the insurance companies do; if the rapture happens, declare bankruptcy and move to the Bahamas!

The other thing to think about is these gullible lemmings are giving uncounted billions to snake oil salesmen (clergy) every year, why shouldn’t an honest man be able to skim a little of that honestly?

I thought this was a great joke. But there are actually people who paid him?

If people have enough spare money to pay atheists for post-Rapture pet care, I have to ask — what recession?

Absolutely ethical. No difference here than hawking those ridiculous miracle wrinkle creams bajillions of women are dumb enough to buy.

The truth is the overwhelming majority of products and services on the market today are completely unnecessary, probably waaay overpriced, and most likely fall far short of the claims the merchant is making.

Most purchases are emotional purchases.

How is this any different?

Answer: Yes.

Why? There’s absolutely no deception.

The Christians who sign up for this believe that they are correct and are willing to put their money where it matters.

They also know that the atheists don’t believe it will happen and thus the atheists aren’t promoting their services based on a deception.

* * *

The only questions I have are … can I be on their list for offering the service locally? I’m one of those people that dogs and cats gravitate towards. I know exactly how to give a scalp and ear massage. I also have a large house and ample areas to go walkies.

Sounds like an honest enterprise, if a business openly says they’re selling hot air and someone is willing to buy hot air at said price, it sounds like a fair trade.

I think the service is unnecessary even if the Rapture was a real possibility.

Something that will be a far better thing to do is arrange for someone to accept your pet and name them in your will next time you redo it.

Please note:

I don’t actually believe that you will be saved as a result of your good deeds – I think, theologically speaking, that mercy from God comes as a result of believing that Jesus is Lord.

I’m not sure how effective my business will be for you – but at such a bargain basement price it’s surely worth the risk.

If they called it “insurance”, I’m sure that an ethical argument could be considered for it. 😉

I do have a problem with cashing in on superstition, though. It would make me ethically uncomfortable.

Nathan, will you also put in a good word to the devil for me just in case you pass before me and find yourself down there? Who knows, perhaps the Muslims were right all along.

@ Nathan

Nothing personal, you posted while I was typing.

“so I assume by the end of my degree I’ll know what words to say should I have the opportunity to put your case forward.”

Such altruism, Nathan. My assumption is that by then you may have lost your faith, so I will wait and see…

…and yes, $5 is a great deal 😉

The only thing bad about this idea is that I didn’t have it first.

Nathan, isn’t God omniscient? Doesn’t he already know all of my sins/good deeds? Why would I need you? What could you possibly say to an omnipotent, all-knowing, transcendent being to sway his opinion of me? Sheesh I’d say your service is worthless. But ethical nonetheless.

Jeff P: “As long as his business plan can actually take care of the pets should the rapture occur, I don’t think there is any ethical problem.”

That’s not what’s being offered, though.

The $110 would not be enough for any pet for a year let alone for the rest of the life of the animal.

It’s insurance; a bet.

* The insurers are betting that the actual cost per pet will be 0 plus business overhead since it will never happen.

* The insurees are betting that during the life of the pet that the rapture may happen.

* If the insurees are correct, the insurer will be on the hook for massive costs. If the insuree has a method to distribute those costs — say through a profit sharing plan pre-rapture with people who will take the animals — then the cost impact is lessened to the company or may even be minimal.

I like what Kamaka says, that Christians might prefer non-christian theists to do this. OK, I’m an atheist, but I see good in the Zen Buddhism of Japan that isn’t exactly even theist. I could in good conscience perform a Buddhist post-rapture pet service for Christians. I would have perhaps a disclaimer that although my materialism does not exactly allow me to accept such nonsense, I would be willing to keep an open mind, and take their money. Jeff P. should be ashamed of himself for entertaining the possibility that the rapture might take place. Buhyach!

No ethical problem. I actually made an arrangement with a friend that should the rapture come I could have her house and I would take care of her dog.

No one is pretending to have any special powers. In fact, it is precisely the absence of any special power or belief that makes me (or him) qualified. It is our denial of the supernatural that even allows this.

Nope, no ethical issues.

@Hermes,

You have a good point. The only way the insurance model will work here is if only a small percentage of the people (arrogantly) thinking that they will be raptured will indeed be beamed up.

If they all go up, then the insurance model won’t work. The business plan will have to hope that the biblical passage about the narrow door to heaven is true. Therefore Baptists may think it’s a good insurance plan while UU would question whether it could be fulfilled even if the atheists stay

In all seriousness, the organizer of this scheme should watch out that he does not get investigated for insurance fraud. If he is promising to provide a service that he is not capable of providing in the event, then he may be guilty of fraud. The Attorney General of his state may take a dim view of someone soliciting contracts for a service that he is not capable of performing. How is this different in principle from an oil dealer taking money from customers now to deliver oil next winter at a fixed price in the belief that prices are “sure” to go down by then. Just because he believes that they will go down will not be amdefense in the absence of proof of the ability to perform.

The way I look at it, he is gambling. He is basically betting these Christians that the Rapture won’t happen. He is clear up front that he does not think the rapture will happen and is willing to bet any Christian who believes in the rapture that it won’t. If he loses, he has to insure their pets are taken care of. My only concern is that he is taking advantage of mentally incompetent people, but then I know plenty of competent people who do believe in the rapture. So I am fine with this.

It is a moral obligation to separate a sucker from his money.

Jeff P, actually it doesn’t require any of that. The calculation as a business risk should be 100.00% or 000.00% not some fraction between the two, and then a calculation based on the likelihood of either coming to pass.

For example, let’s talk unusual but actual disasters. Businesses with very high assets often buy insurance for them.

Let’s say you are an executive of a division of a large company that provides a critical service. You go out of your way to make sure that you have redundant systems just in case something bad happens. Yet, there is a small chance that multiple simultaneous disasters may happen.

For example, let’s say your company provides ATM (bank card) service for tens of thousands of ATMs. You have two redundant data centers that each can handle a full load from all of those ATMs.

One, you place up north away from any tropical disasters.

The other, you place down south away from any blizzards.

You’re happy, since blizzard season happens in winter, and hurricanes happen during the warmer months. If one of your centers get taken off line, you can get it repaired before the other one is in danger.

There’s no way that you can have any problems. Your customers will be happy, and you will not spend extra on yet another redundant system that won’t really be used. Perfect!

But, just in case, you take out insurance. That way, if your customers (the banks) aren’t happy, you are covered and you can pay out the law suits. The insurer also is happy since it’s easy money. Your boss in the home office is happy since they aren’t under any risk at all since they have you taking care of thousands of such nagging details that each have a very slight chance of ever happening. (Boss thinks — rightly — that if there are enough very rare but potential disasters, some of them will actually happen.)

You do your work, life goes on, and part of your job is to authorize various insurance payments and make sure the contracts are kept in a secure location. Life is dull, but it is good on the weekends.

Then, a few yeas in, a blizzard actually hits and takes out your northern data center. That’s a problem for you, but service is not impacted since the southern data center is still up. Your disaster recover plan is put into effect, and you schedule when the northern center will be back in production again.

Then a freak hail storm caves in the roof of the southern data center, taking it out too. Oops!

The insurance model has losers in this case; the insurer. It’s still a bet, though.

In the case of the rapture, the insurer is betting that 0 will be the number. Personally, I can show how that 0 number is a safe bet. The only risk is that something that ‘looks like’ the rapture happens and the insurance contract is activated even though no actual rapture occurs. As I don’t know of a single incidence of a rapture-like event being recorded, I’m not too worried about 200+ contracts being activated all at once. If one or two are activated, it’s still a good business to be in.

Does that make sense? Do you see why Bible passages don’t even come into the calculation? It’s a business. The risk is too low to be a concern. Blizzards and hail storms happen, raptures don’t and won’t.

Absolutely ethical. The website openly admits a skeptical viewpoint of the rapture. No palm reader will ever tell you he thinks fortune-telling is bull as he takes your dollar.

I personally don’t have any ethical problems with this. If these people really believe this rapture will happen, I’d think they’d be willing to wager some of their money on it. It’s their loss if the rapture doesn’t happen. As long as Eternal Earthbound Pets does the service it says it will do in the unlikely event that the rapture does happen. I don’t think this is the same as the claims made by psychics and other woo-pushers at all.

I notice from the website that they currently don’t cover Iowa. If they did, and if I thought I’d still be living in Iowa in ten years, I might subscribe to be one of their people who’d look after people’s pets in the event that the rapture happens.

so my brother and I came up with this same idea about 6 years ago. I just couldn’t bring myself to do it because I did feel it was unethical. To charge someone for a service I see as having super-extreme-high improbability of ever being needed is unethical. It is taking advantage of another human’s ignorance and gullibility for personal financial gain. Not to mention it is encouraging likely delusion. It is all squidgy to me.

“A fool and his money are soon parted.” ! Thomas Tusser

@Tim actually used the analogy that I was going to use, but my point was going to be that it is unethical to run this business. It seems that a fair number of commenters are rationalizing this dilemma by stating that the service in question is up front about not believing that the Rapture will happen. I don’t see how that bears upon the ethical consequences of knowingly taking money from someone when there is no chance of the event taking place. Another example would be someone who sells flood insurance to monks who live on top of a mountain and believe that a world-ending deluge is coming to drown them at 25,000 feet above sea level. The monks would be deluded but willing to pay, how does that make it OK? Rationalizing by stating that they should know better doesn’t mitigate the overt act. I’m not saying that I feel sorry for them, but it’s not ethical.

Jon, people do these types of things every day based on fantasy. Nobody is forcing the pet owners to pay, and $110usd is cheap for peace of mind.

Have conversations with people who insist that the rapture is about to happen. Try and talk them out of it. It rarely works. They are serious. They are committed.

If you want to criticise this service, then there are many many more you should also criticise because they are no better or even worse in real world terms as they don’t even offer direct honesty (from company to client) and personal peace (for the service being purchased).

5ive, of course. They promise what they don’t deliver, like healthy cigarettes and sexy cheap beer.

In this case, there’s the seller is explicit that there will be no delivery. It all hinges on hope that the seller isn’t selling. (That’s refreshing for business. I can’t tell you how many times I had to blow past managers BSing me about the wonders of the project I am dealing with.)

The customer comes with that hope and is told that the seller doesn’t agree — and that scepticism ironically is a selling point.

There’s no deception, but it still feels wrong to me. I would feel bad about profiting off those poor people’s delusions. Sure, it’s not my fault they’ve been brainwashed, but taking their money strikes me as opportunistic. I’d be taking advantage of them, knowing full well that I would never need to provide the services that they’ve paid for.

Theresa: “What I *really* don’t get is why the customers think that the unraptured will be in any position to care for pets. We will obviously have to eat them as soon as the famine gets bad.”

With so few ‘true Christians’? 😛

The population dip will surely be minimal, resulting in very little impact.

Thanx to Nathan and Bing for making this one of the funniest threads in a while…

This is brilliant.

To those who raised questions, look at the website (esp FAQs). At least one lawyer has looked over the contract, I’d stake my soul (ha). This is not presented as an insurance policy. It’s a “sale”. The price covers administrative costs like upkeep of the website, travel to/from the rapturee’s home to pick up the animal, and profit (it says that right up front). The people adopting the unraptured pets are doing just that, adopting them (and assuming all future costs).

All sales are final. The contract expires exactly 10 years after it is signed & paid, and there are no refunds, including for loss, death, transfer in ownership of the pet, and including: “If subscriber loses his/her faith and/or the Rapture occurs and subscriber is not Raptured (aka is “left behind”) EE-BP disclaims any liability; no refund will be tendered.”

Just brilliant.

The most manipulative part of the whole thing, IMO, is the cuuuuuute photo of the puppy at the top of their home page. Awwww!

The interesting bit is that I was certain this was rapture-related as soon as I saw the title. I’ve seen a similar website, about people taking messages from the “saved” for their loved ones in case they get left behind.

I really don’t see anything unethical about this.
If I was a believer however, I might have to ask the question of the possibility of the atheists in charge of this finding Jesus between now and the rapture.
Consider this: they are essentially paying someone to ensure that they are decent people (so that they will uphold their contracts) but no so decent that they go to heaven with them.
(I can imagine that awkward discussion: “-Bart? What are you doing here in Heaven? -I found Jesus two weeks before the Rapture! -But what about Snookums?! You #$%^!, we had a contract!”
I can just see it animated by Seth McFarlane)

If these guys were to get in trouble with the law for insurance fraud, then surely all churches would have the same problem? (You know, all the work and money some people put into the church to save their immortal souls and all that jazz! ;))

I don’t find anything about this unethical at all. Well, maybe the idea of a rapture is unethical, but nothing to do with Bart Centre. He’s not doing anything to promulgate the concept of the rapture, or to coerce someone into doing something, he’s just offering a service.

I listened to an podcast interview with him a year ago. It must have the infidelguy:
http://recordings.talkshoe.com/TC-49897/TS-269133.mp3

From what I remember (without hearing it again). They are serious about it. The $110 only covers the travel to get the pets. The atheists are petlovers. They live within reasonable distance of their potential charges. If they don’t he refuses to take the business.

Theists may not apply. It is very important for the customers to be assured they really are atheists so they can’t be accidentally raptured (lol).

The difference between this and what Nathan said, of course, is that these people are catering to something that their customers actually believe in…

This is a voluntary idiot-tax. If these fools want to pay it would be wrong not to separate them from their money. It would only be going to their pastor’s Lexus payment otherwise.

Nathan,

Your post is clearly joking, but if you think, for a moment, that an atheist would actually pay any amount, no matter how litte, to you, to an imam, or to the pope, for anything resembling that service, then I’d put that you don’t “get it”.

For the record, I would “sell my soul” for a nickle. Not a penny, mind you, because they’re not accepted in vending machines and I tend to toss them in the trash more often than I make use of them. But yes, for a nickle. For the same nickle, I’ll happily sign any “deal with the devil” put to me; and I’d happily sign off the souls of my wife and children (if that “made sense” to the recipient’s brand of superstition) for the same. Furthermore, I wouldn’t give that nickle back for the promise of 4 billion simultaneous prayers from every living theist of every stripe to every divine being currently living in the imaginations of said believers. These decisions wouldn’t even give me pause: the chance that that nickle might make the difference in having one nickle more than $.70 in pocket change in face of a vending machine bag of M&Ms priced at $.75 is *infinitely* more valuable to me.

Not sure if I speak for other atheists out there, but just wanted to make my own personal rejection of your offer clear and unambiguous.

Hoverfrog, consider the lottery or donations to a church. This service gives peace of mind that is both limited and specific as opposed to unlimited and continual — even if it is like the others largely fictional.

I just think it’s funny as hell.

I love it.

@Elena Villarreal

“No! What if you’re holy enough to be raptured?”

Never happen. Even if Rapture were true (it’s not), fundies like these would likely say, “You can’t join us because you’re a Catholic. You’re going to Hell for worshipping the Whore of Rome! But please be good to Fido, he loves Kibbles and Bits.”

Angel, cult members — I’d agree with that. Yet, I’ve had detailed intellectual discussions with many theists who would chew you out for calling them weak minded.

They’d be right to be offended, but not for the reason they think; cult indoctrination requires some intellectual engagement and that’s what makes it scary. Dumb people don’t tend to have complex imaginations that can be abused and as such don’t make good followers or recruiters.

That said, if you can figure out effective ways to deprogram them, I’m all ears. Till then they have needs that they want served. The price is high enough to be taken seriously as a credible service, but is not so high as to be abusive. If you think it is, then you must also consider many other consumer goods to be abuses as well. Do you point those abuses out also when appropriate?

Ideally, i think Bart should take a small percentage of the fees collected to cover his costs for website administration, his time etc. and then donate the rest to worthy charities. The obvious one i think would be animal shelters with no religious affiliation. It is an interesting ethical dilemma and also a model of Poe’s Law.

In the interest of full disclosure, when i first heard about this i contacted Bart about becoming a franchisee; Northern Arizona is full of religious nuts and i do like animals. He politely declined saying there were no franchising plans at this time.

Taking care of the pets should not be too much of a problem. Let us suppose there IS a rapture, How many of his customers would be raptured? My guess is not many.

For it to be a viable business model, potential customers would have to be convinced that if the rapture did occur, then the pets would be taken care of. Otherwise no one who believed in the rapture would sign up for it. Even of the atheists providing the service were convinced that the probability of needing to actually provide for the pets was less than 1×10^-200%, they still must put a viable plan forward. Otherwise no-one would buy a policy.

Nathan,

There is a profound difference between what you propose and what these young men are doing (of which I’ve been aware for some time, and of which I don’t really approve). You think we’re going to be tormented forever and ever (probably while you get to watch). It’s completely inappropriate for you to make light of it, let alone make a joke about it.

Frankly, I’m annoyed I’m the only one saying this to you.

First off – Nathan, I like the way you think. Let’s you and me do business. We’ll make a bet on something concrete that will manifest based on your and my differing beliefs (I’m an atheist). You seem like an enterprising fellow so why don’t you make the first suggestion and we’ll go from there?

The fact is, every time people exchange goods or services for money, there’s a different valuation of the goods and services in question. Your plumber must think that his time and effort to unclog your drain is worth less than $99 of your dollars, or he wouldn’t do it. Who are YOU to decide for him whether he’s being rational? What’s more, if he’s not, is it up to you to protect him? Most of us would agree that it’s immoral to take money from a mumbling homeless person who’s convinced that your scarf has magic powers and wants to buy it for $50, but isn’t there a cut-off for people who are actually responsible for their actions? Don’t atheists believe that there is better living to be had through rationality, that there is a *cost* to having irrational beliefs? For example, $110 for the aforementioned Pet Rapture service. And crucially – does it matter at all whether the Pet Rapture guy thinks it’s a joke? That doesn’t mean it’s not true – he might be wrong! If you’re Amish and you think internal combustion engines are a joke but you’re willing to sell me real high-test for $1.50 a gallon, I’ll be happy to do business with you! I don’t care how much you disbelieve in it.

Maybe he’s just doing it for the lulz

Here you go friends – please sign up for my bargain basement post-rapture services, more details at this site.

To those who have asked how purchasers can be sure the pet-adopters won’t be raptured too, LOOK AT THE WEBSITE. It specifically says that they are all asked to be sure they are atheists AND have blasphemed (the unforgivable sin). (The site quotes scripture to back up some of its selling points, including this one.)

To those who say that he won’t follow through, or that only a small percentage of believers have signed up, LOOK AT THE WEBSITE. It specifically says that they will only accept applications from people whose pet-needs they can accommodate, including requiring that a volunteer reside within 24 hr travel time of the pet’s location. It specifically says that they reserve the right to turn down applications if they cannot meet the need.

@Angel

If preying on the weak-minded for monetary profit is considered ethical, my definition of the word is much much different.

I am shocked at the condescending attitude toward rapture-believers being expressed by some in this discussion. Calling them “weak-minded” is really insulting and ratio-centric, in my mind. Sure, they believe things that you think are nutso, but then the reverse is true, too. They firmly believe that the rapture is going to happen, and that they are going to be raptured. Offering to help with the practical ramifications of that is actually a kind thing to do. It helps relieve their anxiety about what will happen to Fido and Fluffy. Golden rule, and so on.

What I don’t get is not whether the atheists might actually get raptured. It’s why the rapture-believers think the atheists will be able to care for their left-behind pets when the horror story version of Jesus comes back for all the sinners, since JC will be chasing the atheist pet-adopters down by horse, slaying them with his sword-tongue, and somehow also throwing them alive into a lake of fire. Gets sorta hard to walk the dog twice a day when that kind of stuff is going on.

Now, the lottery. That’s a prime example of preying on teh stoopid…as in, teh stoopid taxpayers who let their state governments institute a lottery, so they can be taxed twice.

Hermes

Hoverfrog, consider the lottery or donations to a church. This service gives peace of mind that is both limited and specific as opposed to unlimited and continual — even if it is like the others largely fictional.

Neither of which I would consider ethical. The former is gambling and the latter a culturally accepted scam on the gullible.

I gave up on having any discourse with him long ago. His conversation always runs like this: I am Christian; therefore, I am right. You are Atheist; therefore, you are mean and hateful (which is exactly what I find him).

Yeah, I went over to his blog and tried to explain it to him there. He wouldn’t back down. Banging one’s head against a brick wall is precisely what it’s like – which I knew already, so I don’t know why I bothered. I told him it was offensive; he actually tried to counter by saying he finds our opinion that he’s wasting his life offensive. You can go over and see how it devolved from there.

This is really about taking a swipe at the mean old atheists who hurt his feelings and/or made him feel insecure about his beliefs. I wouldn’t say this about liberal theists, but I don’t think it’s possible to be a fundamentalist, or a subscriber to any kind of conservative theology, unless one’s development has been arrested. It would seem to be a prerequisite. In developmental terms, they’re operating at the level of children.

The gist of what I believe is this. Evangelicals are mentally lacking in critical thinking skills due to continual and long term brainwashing, which, in my opinion, results in a brain that has been stunted from growing into its full potential.

I don’t think it’s solely a matter of indoctrination. There’s a nascent but slowly growing body of evidence indicating a neurological foundation. That’s what my money’s on.

Ahh, Muggle,

“I am Christian; therefore, I am right. You are Atheist; therefore, you are mean and hateful (which is exactly what I find him).”

If you could point me to any place where I’ve said atheists (in general) are mean and hateful, I’d love to repent.

This is really about taking a swipe at the mean old atheists who hurt his feelings and/or made him feel insecure about his beliefs. I wouldn’t say this about liberal theists, but I don’t think it’s possible to be a fundamentalist, or a subscriber to any kind of conservative theology, unless one’s development has been arrested.

It’s really not. It’s just a response to the question raised by this post – is it ethical to run a service on the basis of beliefs other people hold to but I disagree with? I think it can be, provided you disclose the disagreement.

There is a new variation out there about BABIES, instead of pets.

http://www.rapture-orphan-rescue.com