Phatcatholic, What’s The Strategy?

[Cure of Ars]

I'm Done,

While we are waiting, should we have people start reading up on a subject? It looks like it's going to be another week or so before we are actually defending the faith. (I could be wrong) Maybe just an article on Mary or something? Nothing overwhelming. What do you think? Do I need to keep my panty hose on or what? I’m just a little excited.

Edited July 25, 2004 by Cure of Ars

[Philippe]

i agree with the training

[Theoketos]

Maybe all of should have to go through or re-go through a consecration to Mary?

[Antonius]

[quote name='Chris Zewe' date='Jul 24 2004, 06:57 PM'] Why are you reading a Taoist book? [/quote]
Are you sure it's Taoist and not Confucianist? Besides, Catholics are not forbidden to read books of other religions.

How could we tell people they're wrong and they're going to burn in hell if we don't even know what they believe? [color=red](Kidding kidding! That was sarcasm! That was not charitable and it might be edited! I'm sorry, moderators, it's an attempt at humor and I apologize to anyone I may have hurt.)[/color]

In all seriousness, though, the Church would be severely hypocritical if it said that its followers were not allowed to think and learn about the world around them.

Also, I do think it's dangerous to read Satanist books or spellbooks or occultist books like the Necronomicon.

[cmotherofpirl]

Catholics are to engage the world around them.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Theoketos' date='Jul 24 2004, 01:52 PM'] I can see that, my point is that we should not let our zeal get in the way of love. [/quote]
The apologist Patrick Madrid says for every one hour you evangelize you must spend one hour in prayer explaining why.

You must also call on the Holy Spirit to guide you in Love Charity and Knowledge.

[Guest JeffCR07]

Hey guys, I definately agree with the need to do some training before we plung right in, though exactly what kind of training (let alone how) I don't really know, besides personally reviewing the (tons of) info that is in the reference section.

Also, Cure, with regards to going into "hostile territory," I definately agree, though I think that we should plung into a site that is a little more tepid rather than jumping straight into the cauldron.

[phatcatholic]

i think the reference section already serves as the best training we have available. i suggest to every soldier that they go to the reference section and do the following:

--MASTER the Sola Scriptura debate (since every debate w/ a protestant eventually boils down to authority/rule of faith)
--pick the one topic you know the least about and read the articles available.

i'm leaving up to each person as to how diligently they apply this advice. just know that knowledge of the faith is critical in this endeavor.

pax christi,
phatcatholic

[Guest JeffCR07]

sounds good to me! I'll get crackin!

[phatcatholic]

another resource that is helpful is a firm grasp on logic. if you know what constitutes a logical fallacy and if you can take a person's argument and outline the steps in their logic, then you almost never fail. logic is so air-tight its silly. if you're a beginner, don't worry about this for now, but for those who are willing to take this on and add it to your toolkit, [url="http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/index.htm"][b]this webpage[/b][/url] is amazing. it lists all the possible logical fallacies, provides an example for each one, and tells you how to respond to it.

check out all the errors in logic:

Fallacies of Distraction
--False Dilemma: two choices are given when in fact there are three options
--From Ignorance: because something is not known to be true, it is assumed to be false
--Slippery Slope: a series of increasingly unacceptable consequences is drawn
--Complex Question: two unrelated points are conjoined as a single proposition

Appeals to Motives in Place of Support
--Appeal to Force: the reader is persuaded to agree by force
--Appeal to Pity: the reader is persuaded to agree by sympathy
--Consequences: the reader is warned of unacceptable consequences
--Prejudicial Language: value or moral goodness is attached to believing the author
--Popularity: a proposition is argued to be true because it is widely held to be true

Changing the Subject
--Attacking the Person:
(1) the person's character is attacked
(2) the person's circumstances are noted
(3) the person does not practise what is preached
--Appeal to Authority:
(1) the authority is not an expert in the field
(2) experts in the field disagree
(3) the authority was joking, drunk, or in some other way not being serious
--Anonymous Authority: the authority in question is not named
--Style Over Substance: the manner in which an argument (or arguer) is presented is felt to affect the truth of the conclusion

Inductive Fallacies
--Hasty Generalization: the sample is too small to support an inductive generalization about a population
--Unrepresentative Sample: the sample is unrepresentative of the sample as a whole
--False Analogy: the two objects or events being compared are relevantly dissimilar
--Slothful Induction: the conclusion of a strong inductive argument is denied despite the evidence to the contrary
--Fallacy of Exclusion: evidence which would change the outcome of an inductive argument is excluded from consideration

Fallacies Involving Statistical Syllogisms
--Accident: a generalization is applied when circumstances suggest that there should be an exception
--Converse Accident : an exception is applied in circumstances where a generalization should apply

Causal Fallacies
--Post Hoc: because one thing follows another, it is held to cause the other
--Joint effect: one thing is held to cause another when in fact they are both the joint effects of an underlying cause
--Insignificant: one thing is held to cause another, and it does, but it is insignificant compared to other causes of the effect
--Wrong Direction: the direction between cause and effect is reversed
--Complex Cause: the cause identified is only a part of the entire cause of the effect

Missing the Point
--Begging the Question: the truth of the conclusion is assumed by the premises
--Irrelevant Conclusion: an argument in defense of one conclusion instead proves a different conclusion
--Straw Man: the author attacks an argument different from (and weaker than) the opposition's best argument

Fallacies of Ambiguity
--Equivocation: the same term is used with two different meanings
--Amphiboly: the structure of a sentence allows two different interpretations
--Accent: the emphasis on a word or phrase suggests a meaning contrary to what the sentence actually says

Category Errors
--Composition: because the attributes of the parts of a whole have a certain property, it is argued that the whole has that property
--Division: because the whole has a certain property, it is argued that the parts have that property

Non Sequitur
--Affirming the Consequent: any argument of the form: If A then B, B, therefore A
--Denying the Antecedent: any argument of the form: If A then B, Not A, thus Not B
--Inconsistency: asserting that contrary or contradictory statements are both true

Syllogistic Errors
--Fallacy of Four Terms: a syllogism has four terms
--Undistributed Middle: two separate categories are said to be connected because they share a common property
--Illicit Major: the predicate of the conclusion talks about all of something, but the premises only mention some cases of the term in the predicate
--Illicit Minor: the subject of the conclusion talks about all of something, but the premises only mention some cases of the term in the subject
--Fallacy of Exclusive Premises: a syllogism has two negative premises
--Fallacy of Drawing an Affirmative Conclusion From a Negative Premise: as the name implies
--Existential Fallacy: a particular conclusion is drawn from universal premises

Fallacies of Explanation
--Subverted Support (The phenomenon being explained doesn't exist)
--Non-support (Evidence for the phenomenon being explained is biased)
--Untestability (The theory which explains cannot be tested)
--Limited Scope (The theory which explains can only explain one thing)
--Limited Depth (The theory which explains does not appeal to underlying causes)

Fallacies of Definition
--Too Broad (The definition includes items which should not be included)
--Too Narrow (The definition does not include all the items which shouls be included)
--Failure to Elucidate (The definition is more difficult to understand than the word or concept being defined)
--Circular Definition (The definition includes the term being defined as a part of the definition)
--Conflicting Conditions (The definition is self-contradictory)


awesome stuff

pax christi,
phatcatholic

Edited July 27, 2004 by phatcatholic

[Guest JeffCR07]

great stuff, thanks phat!

[Cure of Ars]

phatcatholic, You the man, thanks for that link.