Is This a Credible Source?

[Volkov]

I have been involved in a debate with religious zealots in another forum, and I am wondering if Kautsky's Foundations of Chrsitianity is a reliable source (I don't really like the idea of Kautsky's name on something).  I looked for documents on religion (especially Christianity), and this is the largest one I found.  Are there any other ones that are long and comprehensive?

[petrel]

Personally, I'd say, its main points, like  we do not know if Jesus really lived, are still valid. However, it *is* about a century old. A century of much historical and archaeological work in Israel etc.

[Dasher]

Kautskys FoC should be OK.    and good debating.

[turnoviseous]

Originally posted by Volkov
I have been involved in a debate with religious zealots in another forum, and I am wondering if Kautsky's Foundations of Chrsitianity is a reliable source (I don't really like the idea of Kautsky's name on something).  I looked for documents on religion (especially Christianity), and this is the largest one I found.  Are there any other ones that are long and comprehensive?

I haven´t read the Kautsky´s book, but I still believe its best to battle religious fanatics on philosophical grounds, but only if they are familiar with philosophy of course. Otherwise this in no good if you can´t really simplify things.

[Vespucci]

only if they are familiar with philosophy of course

If they were familiar with philosophy they probably wouldn't be religious fanatics in the first place :D

[turnoviseous]

Originally posted by Vespucci
If they were familiar with philosophy they probably wouldn't be religious fanatics in the first place :D

Well, idealism is dominant philosophy in nowadays society, even more sad fact is that the idealism is not even religious objective idealism of the past, but subjective idealism and positivism.

[Vespucci]

the idealism is not even religious objective idealism of the past

Hmm. What do you mean by "religious objective"? Seems like an oxymoron.

[turnoviseous]

Originally posted by Vespucci
Hmm. What do you mean by "religious objective"? Seems like an oxymoron.

Most religions base on objective idealist philosophy.

Objective because they recognize nature as objective world (having some natural laws in it etc..). But they give advanteage to idea over matter (first there was idea/word/whatever then it was matter).

Subjective idealism and positivism are (they are practically the same, positivism is a version of subjective idealism) even more idiotic than objective idealism. Positivism for example says that nature isn´t objective (that all happens somewhat random), without some cause, natural laws etc..) that there is no right or wrong theory - it only depends on your point of view....this is the philosophy that predominates nowadays, and its really absurd and anti-scientific, maybe we could only compare it with the philosophy of absurd.

[Volkov]

Originally posted by turnoviseous
I haven´t read the Kautsky´s book, but I still believe its best to battle religious fanatics on philosophical grounds, but only if they are familiar with philosophy of course. Otherwise this in no good if you can´t really simplify things.

Yes, that would be best.  I am starting to refute the fanatic's points based on Kautsky, but I have yet to bring it on a philosophical basis.

[Volkov]

Ach!  I am having difficulty in this debate!!  The fanatic just gives one of those new intepretations, while Kautsky seems to deal with the so-called Christians of his time, i.e. those that believed in the Bible word-for-word.  He also makes his posts excessively long, and I don't have time to respond to them all.

Any advice?:confused:

[Volkov]

Originally posted by Volkov
Ach!  I am having difficulty in this debate!!  The fanatic just gives one of those new intepretations, while Kautsky seems to deal with the so-called Christians of his time, i.e. those that believed in the Bible word-for-word.  He also makes his posts excessively long, and I don't have time to respond to them all.

Any advice?:confused:

Never mind.  It was just lengthy, and I found that he has contradicted himself a few times.  Sorry to annoy anyone if I did.

[turnoviseous]

Originally posted by Volkov
Never mind.  It was just lengthy, and I found that he has contradicted himself a few times.  Sorry to annoy anyone if I did.

Well, my grateful tip is that when arguing on the net, always keep in mind what is the purpose of arguing. If someone is learning marxism, then good arguing for something can give you greater knowledge of marxism.

But in most cases its waste of time if you want to convince some religious fanatics into marxism, and if thats the only aim, it´s useless arguing then.

[petrel]

While arguing, one might think not just of the immediate opponent, who may be eg a religious fanatic; but also about others on that forum.

[turnoviseous]

Well, still we all agree that in most cases it is useless, don´t we?

[Vespucci]

Some differences can't be overcome with dialogue. Unfortunate but true...