Is organized religion a business?

[Zzyzx]

.
Many seem to cringe when religious organizations are referred to as businesses (as though preaching was "above" all that). However, it seems as though organized religions of all denominations fit the definition of business:

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/b/business.asp
An organization or enterprising entity engaged in commercial, industrial or professional activities. A business can be a for-profit entity, such as a publicly-traded corporation, or a non-profit organization engaged in business activities, such as an agricultural cooperative.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/business
the activity of making, buying, or selling goods or providing services in exchange for money

Being classified as "not for profit" does not indicate an activity is something other than a business.

It makes no difference if customers of a business are referred to as clients, patients, subjects, parishioners, etc.

Income to a business may be labeled fees, receipts, donations, voluntary, mandatory, barter, expected, appreciated or whatever, without changing the definition of what constitutes a business.



If an organization provides legal (or tax) services, advice and counseling free of charge or for donations, and is categorized as not-for-profit (but has employees and other expenses covered by income), is it still a business?

If an organization provides religious services, advice and counseling free of charge or for donations, and is categorized as not-for-profit (but has employees and other expenses covered by income), is it still a business?

[Goose]

To decide whether something is a business of not, instead of asking whether they claim to be non-profit or not, why not actually look at how much money they make.

Annual revenue is irrelevant. By your reasoning Habit for Humanity is a for profit-business since it has a substantial annual revenue.

According to Habitat for Humanity’s 2013 annual report their estimated (unaudited) global total revenue for the period ending June 30th 2012 was $1.5B. With net assets of $2.3B. Heck, they even brag about it in the report.

http://www.habitat.org/support/report

[Danmark]

Of course they are a business. All snake oil salespeople are business people.

Moderator Warning


This is a one-liner and a negative blanket statement.
Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Zzyzx]

.

It is a bit premature to assume that I ignored your post. It took me thirty minutes to construct the below reply. Impatient?

No, take all the time you need. I just noticed how you first posted something that replied to nothing I wrote,

Yes, I posted that you wrote nothing about a "few" points I raised in earlier posts. Perhaps at some point you may even attempt to address them. I'll expand the list if/when other points are ignored.

and you only proceeded to reply to me after I posted my reminder. If you were planning on replying to my post all along then there's no problem.

Do you intend to reply to my post #13? Should I assume that you have ignored it after thirty minutes or an hour?

If you want to debate this issue, reply to my post. Plain and simple.
If you can't reply to what I wrote, for whatever reason, then we're done.

I can understand that you might like to avoid further debate.

Speak for yourself. This debate has been very easy for me since I'm debating a subject I'm competent

If one is competent it seems as though they should be able to successfully and convincingly respond to post #13. Take your time. I won't post a reminder for a day or two.

with an opponent whose entire case rests upon dictionary definitions. What could be easier?

It should be easy if you were competent as you claim and my "entire case rests upon dictionary definitions."

Readers will decide for themselves the merit of what we present.

Your position would be much more stronger if you could produce a textbook or a professional/academic piece that supports anything you say.

Thank you for the unsolicited advice.

First, you completely ignored my point about pricing.

MUST a business set fixed pricing for its goods and services in order to be considered a business?

Asking a question IS NOT debating.

Au contraire. Questions are a very effective means of demonstrating flaws in opposition arguments. When they cannot or will not answer openly and honestly (without evasion or tricks) it becomes apparent that their argument and/or position is defective (as you may have noticed).

Asking questions is a very easy posting style that anyone is capable of doing, however it would be more productive if you managed to explain how my point is incorrect or why you disagree with my point.

Thank you for the unsolicited advice. However, I am allowing and encouraging YOU to demonstrate that your point is incorrect.

I am not here to answer your questions, I'm here to debate and argue.

Evading and avoiding points raised by opponents is debate?

By that "reasoning" YOU should not expect answers to any question. Is it honorable debate to ignore points and questions by opponents and/or to use diversionary tactics?

Churches do not price their services, despite whatever you may say.

What I say is that churches provide religious services and receive income from customers (often called parishioners, flock, sheep, etc). Services out – income in.

Yes, I know. Repeating something doesn't make it true. I already responded to this by pointing that many people consume church services without paying anything whatsoever.

If people consume services at a business without being charged does that prove that the business is not a business?

Your position is so clearly indefensible that a prominent secularist on this forum disagrees with you:

It is gratifying that someone helps you.

If a business does not set a price for its services, is it therefore not a business?

Economics, business and finance courses devote huge amounts of time to studying prices. Pricing is a part of business modeling.

Irrelevant

If a business doesn't set a price for its services it's a charity.

Does your business and finance competence not include knowledge of PWYW pricing strategy that has been found to be successful in some applications.

Pay What You Want (or PWYW) is a pricing strategy where buyers pay any desired amount for a given commodity, sometimes including zero. In some cases, a minimum (floor) price may be set, and/or a suggested price may be indicated as guidance for the buyer. The buyer can also select an amount higher than the standard price for the commodity.

Giving buyers the freedom to pay what they want can be very successful in some situations, because it eliminates many disadvantages of conventional pricing. Buyers are attracted by permission to pay whatever they want, for reasons that include eliminating fear of whether a product is worth a given set price and the related risk of disappointment (“buyer's remorse�). For sellers it obviates the challenging and sometimes costly task of setting the “right� price (which may vary for different market segments). For both, it changes an adversarial conflict into a friendly exchange, and addresses the fact that value perceptions and price sensitivities can vary widely among buyers.[2] While most uses of PWYW have been at the margins of the economy, or for special promotions, there are emerging efforts to expand its utility to broader and more regular use http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pay_what_you_think_is_fair

Perhaps that information has not yet made its way into textbooks?

Apparently charities are businesses in your mind?

Some may be. Goodwill Inc comes to mind as a business operating as a charity (or a charity operating as a business – or something else according to detractors).

Your "explanation" (from post #10 " A cash flow refers to something like the rate of return on a capital investment" seems to differ substantially from an actual definition of cash flow (which I provided from credible source).

Do you know what the difference is between a definition and an example.

I take a statement that begins with "A cash flow refers to . . " to mean that the writer intends to tell what the term "cash flow" refers to (an attempted definition?) – when in fact the term is defined very different from the narrow example you provided.

Perhaps I am not the one who has mixed up words.

I provided an example, and you provided a definition. Do you know what the difference is between and example and a definition?

Am I wrong to expect that given your claim of competence you should be able to convey the meaning of "cash flow" effectively and accurately (as you appear to have been trying unsuccessfully to do with the "example")?

You asked "Uh do you know what a cash flow is? And I responded with a definition that I find acceptable.

You provided an example that does NOT indicate knowledge of what "cash flow" means other than in a narrow sense applying to a specific example.

I find the definition acceptable as well. However, your false attempt to discredit what my example is really based on nothing substantial. My example and your definition are not worded the same because definitions and examples are different things.

Did you set out originally to say what "cash flow" means?

In honorable debate when one is asked to provide references for their claims it is NOT acceptable to respond with "read textbooks."

Wait, what makes you an expert on 'honorable debate?'

That is not my personal "expertise" but is a Forum Rule designed to promote honorable (and civil) debate. Otseng is the expert.

And my position is based upon economics textbooks,

Some of my position is based on actual experience owning and operating businesses.

Textbooks aren't a bad start toward understanding and competence – but only a start (as many graduates going into professions can attest).

Not everything in textbooks or taught in academia actually works or applies in the real world.

and I've said that you can confirm everything I've said here by looking through a micro/macroeconomics text. ANY text on the market will do. If I can find a pdf of one on the internet I'll post it here.

Thank you for the unsolicited advice.

Perhaps it would be prudent to review the "Evidence Page" that says in part "Evidence presented should provide a source. References should be as specific as possible. If you quote a book, provide the book information as well as the page number. If you quote a website, give the full URL."
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... hp?t=16903

Intermediate Microeconomics, Hal Varian, Chapter 19 and Chapter 20-23 all confirm what I've said about profit maximizing entities. Also, the material found within these chapters focuses solely on for profit business, not non profit organizations. I've also relied slightly on Macroeconomics by Greg Mankiw, Chapter 3. These are the sources I base my claims off.

It is good to see you citing actual sources.

If a corporation is a "business entity" and if a church is incorporated how, exactly, does it escape being a corporate business entity?

An incorporated church would be a nonprofit entity, like I've said already. Simply referring to a church as a business is not accurate, and is based on a basic understanding of dictionaries. When one attains a sophisticated understanding of business affairs based upon economics and finance, he or she will realize that a business is an entity that is created by an entrepreneur who seeks to gain and maximize profit. In doing so, the entrepreneur prices his goods and services and only allows people to consume them by giving him money first.

Is "giving him money first" a requirement for an organization to be considered a business?

I've already explained how churches do not come anywhere close to this. Do I need to explain it again?

Repeating a statement does not make it true.

A business in the real world (not just academia) may or may not be a "for profit / profit maximizing entity." There is no requirement or law that REQUIRES a business to seek profit or seek to maximize profit.

I never said there was? Please stop creating straw men. Soup kitchens, homeless shelters and churches are non profit, charitable organizations, NOT businesses. You'd be inaccurate to call a soup kitchen a business,

Please stop creating straw men.

I have not called a soup kitchen a business (except one concerning which I have inside information that clearly indicates that it is a business in which feeding people is third on the priority list, if that).

and you'd be inaccurate to call a church a business.

In your opinion.

This is why it's necessary to study business beyond a dictionary level. When the four market structures are taught in business/economics classes they only apply to for profit entities, not NPO's.

Does that somehow prove that non-profits are NOT businesses?

Yes, absolutely, because economists and financiers have developed models to analyze businesses.

Analytical models do not set the parameters for what is or is not a business – though they may appear to if one is overly reliant on academia and its literature.

One of these analytical 'models' are the 4 market structures, that exclude NPO's. These models, that are devoted to studying businesses and firms, only focus on for profit businesses, not non profit organizations because there is a huge distinction between the two.

You were trying to defend a claim that barter existed only where other mediums of exchange did not exist.

Do you recognize the statement "Barter is a form of trade where mediums of exchange do not exist"? You should from your post #10. The statement is clearly false since barter occurs worldwide including between major corporations (that obviously have mediums of exchange).

Since money has been conceived barter economies have disappeared, and this is because barter is used where mediums of exchange DO NOT EXIST.

I have shown with proper citation that barter DOES exist in Europe, North America (as well as worldwide). Do mediums of exchange exist in those places?

If (since) they do that renders your statement incorrect.

Are you really arguing with this basic fact that is taught in undergraduate money and banking courses. The only real place where barter has been used in the modern world is Zimbabwe, and this is because inflation completely destroyed their currency making barter the only option left.

Again, barter is used on significant scale in the US and Europe – where the dollar and the euro do exist.

Would you care to try another tactic in attempting to claim that barter does not exist if a medium of exchange is available?

I trust that readers understand that my example is not unknown or uncommon. That you would not acknowledge such is far from surprising.

You're constantly referring to these readers,

Yes, I often refer to readers because those are the people to whom my comments are intended. I have no delusions about debate opponents acknowledging that ideas I present have some merit (since they conflict with preconceived notions or positions).

As new a thread as this is (two days) it already has almost 250 views. Some of those people I trust will evaluate the merits of what is said and reach their own conclusions regarding Theism vs. Non-Theism.

and you assume that all these readers are on your side and support everything you write.

It would be very silly for anyone to make that assumption.

I have no need to think at the level of "sides" and certainly do not feel any need for support.

When you make references to 'readers' you're referring to the members of the 'Zzyzx Fan' usergroup, right?

Wrong. When I refer to readers I mean all who read the threads. I don't "preach to the choir" but leave that to those who prefer or require that environment.

Perhaps you would have case if you could provide one single economy in the history of the world that opted to engage purely in barter, even though a medium of exchange existed.

Where did all that come from? You were trying to defend your statement, "Barter is a form of trade where mediums of exchange do not exist"

Barter is alive and well in developed (as well as less developed) nations – irrespective of the existence of mediums of exchange – as demonstrated in my citations above.

Really? You cited a news organization that promotes barter and you think that that supports your claim that barter is used alongside mediums of exchange?

Correction: I also cited an international barter exchange.

Do you sincerely doubt that barter is conducted in economies that also use a currency or medium of exchange? Do textbooks not recognize barter as a legitimate means of doing business?

Please, support your claim by citing a single economy that engages purely in barter even though they have a currency.

If I said or claimed that there was an economy "that engages purely in barter even though they have a currency", I would be prepared to support that claim. However, that is YOUR statement, not mine. You wouldn't attempt to attempt a straw man or red herring argument, would you?

One of two definitions I supplied mentions exchange for money, the other does not – which is some indication that exchange for money is not a universal constant (or a requirement for all businesses).

I also indicated that businesses that engage in barter are not exchanging goods or services for money.

Churches don't engage in barter either. You do not have to pay ANYTHING to enter a church and consumer their services.

If churches do not generate sufficient income (whatever it is called and however it is collected) to meet expenses they go out of business – just like any other business.

Because churches do not charge for their services, and because churches give away services for free they can't reasonably be considered a business. Businesses are started by profit seeking entrepreneurs, businesses charge prices and don't give away their products and services for free.

Perhaps you KNOW the motivations of all who start business, and KNOW that all businesses charge specific prices, and KNOW that all businesses do not give away products and services.

I'm thankful that I didn't read that textbook.

[Zzyzx]

.
At first glance it seems ironic that someone who acknowledges being Roman Catholic would not realize that the RCC is the wealthiest of all religions (with an estimated wealth accumulation greater than any company – wealthier than many nations).

On second thought, however, it is not ironic or surprising that a Catholic who KNOWS the RCC is vastly wealthy would DENY that the church is a business – by whatever means available (perhaps to maintain an image of "holiness').

Most people realize (and acknowledge) that an organization that becomes a world dominant financially and a world-class investor cannot have gained that position without being a business. That the business is religiously oriented does not negate its being a business whose product is religious services.

Perhaps it is understandable that the RCC and its proponents would choose to down-play the wealth and business stature of their organization.

[Goose]

.
At first glance it seems ironic that someone who acknowledges being Roman Catholic would not realize that the RCC is the wealthiest of all religions (with an estimated wealth accumulation greater than any company – wealthier than many nations).

On second thought, however, it is not ironic or surprising that a Catholic who KNOWS the RCC is vastly wealthy would DENY that the church is a business – by whatever means available (perhaps to maintain an image of "holiness').

Most people realize (and acknowledge) that an organization that becomes a world dominant financially and a world-class investor cannot have gained that position without being a business. That the business is religiously oriented does not negate its being a business whose product is religious services.

Perhaps it is understandable that the RCC and its proponents would choose to down-play the wealth and business stature of their organization.

This is the same reasoning mwtech is using.

As of 2012 the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation had over $37B in total assets.

At the end of 2013 the Howard Hughes Medical Institute had $16.9B in assets, and increase of $1.1B from 2012. With over $2B in total revenue.

As already mentioned to mwtech, Habitat For Humanity estimates its total revenue for 2012 to have been $1.5B with net assets of $2.3B.

Are these businesses too since they have large revenues and substantial assets?

[WinePusher]

Yes, I posted that you wrote nothing about a "few" points I raised in earlier posts. Perhaps at some point you may even attempt to address them. I'll expand the list if/when other points are ignored.

I've been responding to all your replies to my posts. You chose to write a completely new post that addressed nothing I wrote, and it was only until after I posted a reminder that you responded to my actual post.

Do you intend to reply to my post #13? Should I assume that you have ignored it after thirty minutes or an hour?

Why should I respond to another one of your posts when I'm replying here? I realize that you may have plenty of time to spend debating on the internet, but do not assume that this is true for everybody else. I have an actual life, and I don't have the time to reply to TWO of your posts. Again, please stop trying to tell me how I should post

If one is competent it seems as though they should be able to successfully and convincingly respond to post #13. Take your time. I won't post a reminder for a day or two.

The post that I'm currently responding to is that post that I'll keep responding to. I can understand why you'd want us to shift attention away from this dialogue onto another post though.

Your position would be much more stronger if you could produce a textbook or a professional/academic piece that supports anything you say.

Thank you for the unsolicited advice.

Why would I want to give you advice? Please stop misconstruing everything I say, and please stop taking everything I say as advice. I'm not interested in giving advice to someone over the internet. If you can't support your position with professional/academic sources then just say so instead of creating straw men.

Asking a question IS NOT debating.

Au contraire. Questions are a very effective means of demonstrating flaws in opposition arguments. When they cannot or will not answer openly and honestly (without evasion or tricks) it becomes apparent that their argument and/or position is defective (as you may have noticed).

Hm, I'm just wondering if you've ever been in a debate that hasn't been over the internet, or if you've ever seen a real debate? I've seen and been in plenty of debates , and anyone else who has also can attest to the fact that the participants in a debate argue for a position and try to debunk their opponents position. Also, notice that even on an internet debate forum like this one, virtually al lthe debaters argue and attack. Only a very small few ask questions constantly. This is because this is a debate forum, not a Question and Answer forum. Please keep this in mind when writing replies to me.

However, I am allowing and encouraging YOU to demonstrate that your point is incorrect.

Why? Can you not do this yourself?

By that "reasoning" YOU should not expect answers to any question.

If I ever respond to an argument with a one liner question then yes, I deserve to be called out for it because it wouldn't contribute to the debate.

If people consume services at a business without being charged does that prove that the business is not a business?

Oh, you don't know? Well, like I said, I'm here to debate and argue, not to answer questions. If you want an answer to your question go research it, and then come back and debate me.

It is gratifying that someone helps you.

You speak from personal experience, correct? Unlike the many nontheists on this forum I'm able to debate multiple users without any support from others. This forum is dominated by nontheists so I often wonder what would happen if the tables were turned. Would nontheists be able to debate effectively if they didn't have help from others as they do now?

Economics, business and finance courses devote huge amounts of time to studying prices. Pricing is a part of business modeling.

Irrelevant.

This statement is irrelevant. It's a one liner that has no support. Can you actually EXPLAIN why it is irrelevant?

If a business doesn't set a price for its services it's a charity.

Does your business and finance competence not include knowledge of PWYW pricing strategy that has been found to be successful in some applications.

We're not debating whether PWYW is successful, we're debating whether churches are businesses. Do not try to divert from the topic. Churches do NOT price their services, and people consume their services for free. This deviates away from the standard business model. I take it that you can't refute this. Just say so and we can move on.

Do you know what the difference is between a definition and an example.

I take a statement that begins with "A cash flow refers to . . " to mean that the writer intends to tell what the term "cash flow" refers to (an attempted definition?) – when in fact the term is defined very different from the narrow example you provided.

Again, I'm here to debate, not to explain words. I provided an example, you provided a dictionary and then you proceeded to imply that my example was the result of my own imagination. First, please stop with the accusations. Second, 'definition' and 'example' are fully explained in the dictionary.

Am I wrong to expect that given your claim of competence you should be able to convey the meaning of "cash flow" effectively and accurately (as you appear to have been trying unsuccessfully to do with the "example")?

Explain how my example is wrong. Please, provide a detailed explanation of how my example of cash flow is 'unsuccessful.' Do not post a diversionary statement, post an explanation in your own words explaining how my example is unsuccessful. I'm eager to see what you come up with.

Did you set out originally to say what "cash flow" means?

Yes, with an example. Examples are different from definitions.

"]In honorable debate when one is asked to provide references for their claims it is NOT acceptable to respond with "read textbooks."

Wait, what makes you an expert on 'honorable debate?'

That is not my personal "expertise" but is a Forum Rule designed to promote honorable (and civil) debate. Otseng is the expert.

Since you're not otseng, what makes you think you can tell others on what honorable debate is.

and I've said that you can confirm everything I've said here by looking through a micro/macroeconomics text. ANY text on the market will do. If I can find a pdf of one on the internet I'll post it here.

Thank you for the unsolicited advice.

How is it advice when I tell you what my sources are? Please, stop posting these irrelevant statements accusing me of giving you advice when I'm not and have no desire to.

Intermediate Microeconomics, Hal Varian, Chapter 19 and Chapter 20-23 all confirm what I've said about profit maximizing entities. Also, the material found within these chapters focuses solely on for profit business, not non profit organizations. I've also relied slightly on Macroeconomics by Greg Mankiw, Chapter 3. These are the sources I base my claims off.

It is good to see you citing actual sources.

Will you be purchasing/renting any of those texts or are you satisfied with what you have now?

An incorporated church would be a nonprofit entity, like I've said already. Simply referring to a church as a business is not accurate, and is based on a basic understanding of dictionaries. When one attains a sophisticated understanding of business affairs based upon economics and finance, he or she will realize that a business is an entity that is created by an entrepreneur who seeks to gain and maximize profit. In doing so, the entrepreneur prices his goods and services and only allows people to consume them by giving him money first.

Is "giving him money first" a requirement for an organization to be considered a business?

So you respond to my argument by asking a question? How about this, I'll happily answer your question if you also post a rebuttal alongside it. Can you please do that?

Repeating a statement does not make it true.

Indeed, unfortunately you keep repeating your claims about churches and businesses even though I've already addressed them. You're allowed to stick by what you believe, but simply re-asserting it without any additional argumentation is not going to make it true.

Yes, absolutely, because economists and financiers have developed models to analyze businesses.

Analytical models do not set the parameters for what is or is not a business – though they may appear to if one is overly reliant on academia and its literature.

This is just your opinion, and apparently your opinions aren't based on any textbook material. So, why should anybody accept your opinions if they have no grounding in professional/academic sources?

I have shown with proper citation that barter DOES exist in Europe, North America (as well as worldwide). Do mediums of exchange exist in those places?

If (since) they do that renders your statement incorrect.

My statement was that, 'Barter is a form of trade where mediums of exchange do not exist.' My original statement was NOT 'barter does not exist.' Since you didn't want to accept this fact, I provided additional clarification and challenged you to provide one single economy in the history of the world that opted to engage purely in barter, even though a medium of exchange existed. I take it that you CAN'T.

Again, barter is used on significant scale in the US and Europe – where the dollar and the euro do exist.

This is an interesting topic because it involves analysis of the EU and the EU monetary system, which is a very complex topic that requires knowledge of basic economics (preferably from a professional/academic sources, not a popular source).

Yes, I often refer to readers because those are the people to whom my comments are intended.

I see, so you debate with the intention to impress readers and gain their approval?

When you make references to 'readers' you're referring to the members of the 'Zzyzx Fan' usergroup, right?

Wrong. When I refer to readers I mean all who read the threads. I don't "preach to the choir" but leave that to those who prefer or require that environment.

When you say something like, 'I trust readers understand my example' on what basis do you make any such claim? How do you know what readers trust and do not trust. It would be far more accurate if you'd say, 'I trust the members of my fan group' understand my example. Since they belong to that user group they probably do understand and support everything you say.

If I said or claimed that there was an economy "that engages purely in barter even though they have a currency", I would be prepared to support that claim.

Ok, so you can't. Why can't you just say so? Just say, 'no I can't provide a single economy that has elected to engage purely in barter even though a medium of exchange existed?' I'll make the challenge easier for you. Provide a single economy were barter is used more than mediums of exchange. It doesn't have to be purely, just more. Can you please do that?

If churches do not generate sufficient income (whatever it is called and however it is collected) to meet expenses they go out of business – just like any other business.

You can't go out of business when you weren't even in business in the first place. Again, this is why textbooks are very very helpful. An actual business goes out of business when it reaches what is known as the shutdown point. The shutdown point occurs when a business cannot cover it's variable costs of production. Again, this only applies to FOR PROFIT business that price their products.

I encourage you to continue demonstrating that your points are incorrect.

I'm thankful that I didn't read that textbook.

Which one, the microeconomics book by Varian or the macroeconomics book by Mankiw? Both are very good texts but they're advanced and very mathematical. There are much more basic textbooks for those who are just starting out learning about economics, business and finance.

[WinePusher]

You do not have to pay ANYTHING to enter a church and consumer their services. Because churches do not charge for their services, and because churches give away services for free they can't reasonably be considered a business. Businesses are started by profit seeking entrepreneurs, businesses charge prices and don't give away their products and services for free.

I would qualify this statement. Churches do not charge for most of their services, and certainly not for their core services. However, some churches do charge for wedding or funeral services particularly when the consumers of those services are not regular members of the church. Notwithstanding, these minor exceptions, churches are not businesses.

Yes, that's a good observation. Those involved with a wedding and funeral generally do have to pay, not all the time though. Many churches, including my own, provide funeral services for free to those who require it. This itself deviates from the standard business model because an actual business like Best Buy does not generally give away free stuff. And I'm glad we can agree on this fact, especially considering our many disagreements in the past.

Price list:

• weddings (call for price)
• funeral, destination heaven $75 (basic service)
• funeral, destination hell $45 (basic service)
• confession - mortal sin $1.25 each
• confession - venial sin $.74 each (call for our packaged bundle price)
• psalms, hymns and spiritual songs - free with any subscription.

Wow, this has a lot of potential. Try pitching this pricing model to the next Pastor you come across and get him to back your idea. You'll be next Bill Gates. Be sure to throw in a free halo for every new subscription.

[Danmark]

I realize that you may have plenty of time to spend debating on the internet, but do not assume that this is true for everybody else. I have an actual life, and ....

....I'm just wondering if you've ever been in a debate that hasn't been over the internet, or if you've ever seen a real debate?

....Again, I'm here to debate, not to explain words. ....
Since you're not otseng, what makes you think you can tell others on what honorable debate is.
....

Moderator Warning

You have been previously warned not to make personal remarks about how much time someone spends on the forum or claiming that you "have a life," implying they do not. Far too much of this post is based on personal issues that have nothing to do with the debating points.

Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 25:

I'm just wondering if you've ever been in a debate that hasn't been over the internet, or if you've ever seen a real debate?

None have ever experienced a "real debate" 'til they've had 'em an old lady they done upset.

...
Only a very small few ask questions constantly. This is because this is a debate forum, not a Question and Answer forum. Please keep this in mind when writing replies to me.

See above, and remember how many questions a mad at ya woman can ask.

In my experience on this site, it seems theists get the most upset when you ask 'em questions. Is such the product of religious belief being "unquestionable", or is it the product of one who fears questioning their own beliefs?

What better way to find out if someone speaks truth, than to ask 'em if they do?

...
Churches do NOT price their services, and people consume their services for free. This deviates away from the standard business model.

A "deviation" is not a "and it ain't that thing no more". Beyond that, the use of "standard" here is a bit of an argument from tradition.

Is a business practicing a non-standard model no longer a business?

...
Since you're not otseng, what makes you think you can tell others on what honorable debate is.

Just cause ya don't put a question mark, that doesn't mean you ain't asked a question.

Why might it be that you get upset when folks ask you questions, but you find comfort in questioning others? Could it be you don't trust your own answers to certain questions, but think questioning others might benefit your position?

Forum rules do not disallow folks presenting their credentials regarding if maybe they're an expert on what constitutes "real" debate. Fear of being discredited might keep 'em from it though.

So you respond to my argument by asking a question? How about this, I'll happily answer your question if you also post a rebuttal alongside it. Can you please do that?

"I won't answer questions, but I got me a pile of 'em to ask, if ya don't mind the hypocrisy."

It would be far more accurate if you'd say, 'I trust the members of my fan group' understand my example. Since they belong to that user group they probably do understand and support everything you say.

The man's ability to express ideas in clear, concise language is what makes me a fan.

But not a psychophant.

I propose your comments here are a representative example of your own faulty reasoning.

That you think belonging to a group means I support everything that group stands for is a bit like my thinking all Christians are happy with the baby against the rock bashing.

How might we find out if WinePusher is either for or against baby against the rock bashing, without asking him?

Do we just conclude that since he's a thiest, he's a baby against the rock bashing theist?

Dangitall, if we could just ask WinePusher, we might find out.

Alas, I fear some'll think maybe he's all for the rocks getting all baby-bashed.

Which one, the microeconomics book by Varian or the macroeconomics book by Mankiw? Both are very good texts but they're advanced and very mathematical.

"I'll continue to question you, as I fuss about you questioning me!"

There are much more basic textbooks for those who are just starting out learning about economics, business and finance.

Hopefully, you'll find 'em.

Providing a product or service in exchange for something, especially in an on-going manner, is as businessy as I've ever known.

[Goose]

What better way to find out if someone speaks truth, than to ask 'em if they do?

There's nothing wrong with asking a question. I think the point being made is asking a question alone is not an argument for or against a position. Since this a debate forum - not a Q and A forum - we can reasonably expect our opponents to engage in a debate can we not? Usually debates have a format where one side takes the affirmative and one side takes the negative.

To make the point try to imagine an extreme case where in a Presidential debate one candidate's entire line of argumentation consisted of questions - where every argument and rebuttal argument was phrased as a question. No firm position on anything meaningful - just questions directed at the opponent. It wouldn't be much of a debate would it?

Providing a product or service in exchange for something, especially in an on-going manner, is as businessy as I've ever known.

Which excludes churches (and other non-profit organizations) from being considered a business in the sense I believe the author of thread means it since churches don't provide their services in exchange for something. They rely almost entirely upon voluntary donations.