Misinformation about Catholicism

[OpenSource]

How would one of you respond to something like this:

OpenSource, it should be noted that an appeal to authority is a logical fallacy. Your argument is a failure, regardless of evidence and reasoning because it precedes from a false assumption. I’m guessing you are of the church of Cathol, organized only a hundred years or so before the birth of Mohamed. I know a little of the history of the early church, the ‘primitive’ church, and it is clear that Catholicism has not one leg to stand on. There is no ‘pope’ in the Bible, just for one.

There are clearly many errors in this statement, however, it is so mind-boggling that someone could possibly be this mis-informed that I am having a hard time conjuring up a charitable response. Any (name removed by moderator)ut would be greatly appreciated, my brothers and sisters

 

[fermat]

What is the context of this statement? Another discussion board?

 

[kamaan]

The Church of Cathol? Is that supposed to be derogatory?

Also, when does this person consider the Catholic Church to have been organized? I know lots of people who consider the First Council of Nicea to be when the Church was “founded”… that was 325 BC, which is almost 250 years before the birth of Muhammad.

 

[VeritasSeeker]

It’s also worth noting that an appeal to reliable authority is not a logical fallacy but a justification of knowledge(in epistemology).

 

[rcjones]

How would one of you respond to something like this:

OpenSource, it should be noted that an appeal to authority is a logical fallacy.

This is a misunderstanding of the fallacy. Certainly if the authority IS an authority on the topic discussed, an appeal to a proclamation on said topic is not a fallacy. When quoting God, He is THE authority on whatever He chooses to speak on and it is a fallacy to disregard what He says.

Reading a list of names of fallacy does not make one an expert. In fact, the opponent is making a de-facto appeal to authority (his own) that it is a fallacy, by claiming he knows what the fallacy is when he does not fully explain the fallacy and the permitted uses of authority in logic.

So I’d probably use ad-hominem attacks and tell him he was ignorant. Ad-hominem attacks are not fallacy, in themselves unless they are illogically tied to an arguement. In this case his ignorance of logic doesn’t prove or disprove the arguement, but he is still ignorant.

But I’d do it in love…

 

[bnbkaine]

Of course, respond in charity. Like, “I see that you admit that you do not know much on the early Church and perhaps that is why I cannot respond well to your argument. The suppositions that you allude to are beyond ridiculous. But I will pray for you.”

I don’t even know what the “Church of Cathol” is. That is not even where we get the name
“the Catholic Church.” And the Fathers of the Church used the words “the Catholic Church” as the one, true church that Christ founded within a century after Christ died.

Anyone who does not believe in authority is not able to function in society, as we are a society that does submit to the rule of law.

And they don’t have hot dogs in the Bible, but I would think that most people could agree that hot dogs are real.

Plus, there are bishops in the Bible…

I could go on, but this person’s argument was just wrong.

 

[OpenSource]

Yeah I’m not sure what he meant by the church of cathol. I think he may have heard a rumor or two about the Catholic church. It was from a very liberal web site, I’m not even sure why I go there. Wasn’t the church founded at Pentecost?

He also thinks that Islam was founded about 100 years after Christ but it was more like 5-600 years later.

 

[JDaniel]

How would one of you respond to something like this:

OpenSource, it should be noted that an appeal to authority is a logical fallacy. Your argument is a failure, regardless of evidence and reasoning because it precedes from a false assumption. I’m guessing you are of the church of Cathol, organized only a hundred years or so before the birth of Mohamed. I know a little of the history of the early church, the ‘primitive’ church, and it is clear that Catholicism has not one leg to stand on. There is no ‘pope’ in the Bible, just for one.

There are clearly many errors in this statement, however, it is so mind-boggling that someone could possibly be this mis-informed that I am having a hard time conjuring up a charitable response. Any (name removed by moderator)ut would be greatly appreciated, my brothers and sisters

OpenSource:

First, I had to laugh - a good belly-laugh, too. Then I became saddened because I remembered that there are good people that “think” like that.

The appeal to authority is not necessarily a fallacy. It could be, but, not necessarily. If the top cardiologist says something relative to the diagnosis of a person’s heart problem, I’d take it “on good authority.” I suppose your debate partner would rather seek the council of an out-of-work paper cutter? However, if the cardiologist attempted an answer to a technical question about cutting paper . . . well, you get the point. (BTW, from whom did your debate partner receive the fullness of his information?)

The Catholic Church was formed by Christ, in the garden of Gethsemane, when Christ handed Rock (Petros, Cephas) the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven. That exchange took place about 600 years before the birth of Mohamed.

And, actually, Cephas, or Petros, or, Peter (the First per se Pope), is in the Bible. Of course, anything affirmed categorically, can be denied categorically.

God bless,
jd