/lit/ - Literature

>>19858461
dawkins is stuck in newtonian era understanding of science

>>19858461
HAHAHAHAAHAHA now the gaythiests, get it. Secularism is opening up your asshole to a stronger metaphysical framework. I've already said this on /lit.

>>19858461
There‘s nothing to explain you dork. He took Nietzsche seriously, like still too few are brave enough to do.

>>19858461
>Paul Tillich
If he were a good theologian and knew enough about Christianity, he wouldn't be a Protestant to begin with.

>Richard Dawkins
No one takes this guy seriously since he published The God Delusion and was torn to shreds by the same atheists who were experts in the philosophy of religion who thought Dawkins was mentally retarded. For Thomists, Dawkins is like what Marx is for any serious economist: A meme.

>Islam
Europe is going to be Muslim, China is going to be the first power, and you are a third party that cannot do anything about it, so why are you worried? Go out and have sex.

bump

>>19858614
Literal ad hominems and popular appeals. Worthless arguments.

>>19858461
He should fuck off. A christian-muslim alliance is the best defense against globohomo. Then we can fight each other.

If you don't believe in Christ enough to die for it, you are not worth listening to. Will you put your own blood on the line for Jesus? If you won't, don't waste my time.

>>19858614
>what Marx is for any serious economist: A meme.

u can always an american post from the level of internalized propaganda he regurgitates uncritically, even if at total odds w reality

>>19859873
based and redpilled

>>19858461
>dedicate life to undermining the Word of God and attacking Christians
>realize your entire life's work was only helping to destroy the West
>mfw

>>19859900
This. I've never understood the gall of people who reject God, refuse to look for Him, and then think they're an authority on the Word of God to tell His followers what it AKSHUALLY says.

>>19859873
>>19860466
Sandniggers.

>>19858523
>taking Nietzsche seriously means becoming an existential-nihilist copecuck dogmatically making sure not to believe in God

>>19859976
He's right. Marx is not taken seriously in economics and it's been the case for many decades. He's just a historical footnote.

>>19862189
racists will not be welcome into the alliance

>>19858461
You can be an atheist and believe Christianity is politically useful. Probably most conservative politicians since the mid 20th century have done so, to say nothing of any cynical pre-modern religious leaders

>>19862211
Marx was a classical economist in line with Smith. Even Austrian praxis is compatible with him. The LTOV being dogmatically held is retarded but Smith said the same fucking thing and in general applies to menial labor and conventional mass produced goods. The only people who think Marx was dead wrong are neoliberal kenseians and midwits who write economics text books who themselves have never bothered reading him.

>>19858461
This dude spent his entire career denigrating Christianity. Only reason he’s a fan now is because the Muslims (who will be a majority in Europe sooner rather than later) are not as tolerant of this sort of grift as Christians are.

>>19862233
The economists you named are also not taken seriously today. In the 1930s and 1940s there were debates between the Austrians and the Keynesians, debates which were a humiliation for the Austrians in all aspects, to the point that even Hayek's students like Kaldor became Keynesians, although also remember that there were debates between the Austrians and the socialists (such as the one on economic calculation, which did the Austrians win and did shit to the socialists). As for Smith, he seems overrated to me, even Turgot was a better economist than he was in his time. And well Marx...he is synonymous with hunger and misery, please stop posting.

>>19862497
>The economists you named are also not taken seriously today
argumentum ad popularum.

>>19862624
>Scientific consensus is an argumentum ad popularum.
._.

>>19862836
>economy
>science
kek

>>19858614
China won't make it. They're poisoning their own rivers and running out of people. Their economy is teetering on the edge of a massive, long-term collapse. They have no real allies and have pissed off too many countries to make them. They have border disputes with every country with which they have a border.

The Muslim question is more worrisome -- however growing ethnic tensions will eventually wake people up, and then the counter-revolution will be extremely severe.

>>19862836
>muh consensus
Yes, midwit.

>>19863041
Wrong

>>19862222
didn't De Maistre essentially believe that

>>19859873
This is what people like Dawkins are most afraid of, as well as alliances between essentialist political movements and religious groups. As Jonathan Bowden explained many years ago, there are only two things that liberal democracy cannot absorb. One is the far-right, and the other is metaphysical objectivism (what a liberal would call religious extremism).
Notice how the "acceptable" face of the right-wing is always presented in opposition to Islam. This is the position you have to hold if you want to be interviewed on TV, have your books published by well established houses and be part of the "intellectual dark web" (controlled opposition). In much the same way, the "acceptable" face of Islam is always presented in opposition to far-right "Islamophobia".
The liberal technocrat knows who his enemies are, and sets up contrived conflicts. He will, for example, order police not to enforce certain laws in cases where the perpetrator is a brown Muslim and the victim is a white Christian. A minority of Muslim men will inevitably set up grooming gangs, just as a minority of men from any group would if there were nothing to stop them. The few far-right men with the balls to do something about it have their anger diverted toward Muslims as a whole, but away from the police and especially away from those who give those police their marching orders.
In the rare cases where people manage to break out of contrived conflicts, they become instantly more powerful. Not long ago there was a case of this in the UK where a school was forced to back down on its LGBT indoctrination program, by parents simply refusing to send their children to school and standing outside the gates in protest. You won't see this covered much in the media, or if you do it will usually be covered as a story of extremist Muslims in conflict with the "tolerant" school. What they won't tell you is that the parents were both Christians and Muslims standing side by side, putting aside their differences to fight the evil in their midst.
https://barnabasfund.org/news/muslim-and-christian-parents-withdraw-children-from-uk-school-in-protest/
A book I would recommend for anyone interested in this subject is Jihad vs McWorld by Benjamin Barber. He is a total GloboHomo liberal himself, but unlike most of his kind he saw this coming early and tried to write the playbook for how to subvert it. In spite of the title, it actually does not deal exclusively with Islamic terrorism, but rather with the whole range of tribal and religious identities that present a threat to the Washington Consensus worldview which was, at the time, in vogue (he wrote this in the 1990s, before 9/11).

>>19858464
and what would be the modern era understanding of science? everybody swapping genitalia like Mr. Potatohead depending on which SSRIs be bussin fr no cap?

>>19863707
relativity

>>19860505
>The "Word of God" and not the word of random fucking tribesmen in the middle of a desert
I have and will continue to talk down to you and your ilk about your "god."
I'm not even an atheist. I believe in the possibility of a higher power but it is ridiculous to suggest that any of the Abrahamic faiths carry any weight in regards to the true nature of this world.

>>19865862
>Abrahamic
Pseud.