Why do so many atheists need a “great man” to worship? – Freedom Feens live radio archive

Share
Play

tysonsmug

Why do so many people who claim to love truth and science religiously defend unscientific things from their “scientific” “leaders”? And why do intelligent people even NEED leaders to worship? And why do otherwise-intelligent people value presentation and debate flash over substance and facts?

http://thefederalist.com/2014/09/16/another-day-another-quote-fabricated-by-neil-degrasse-tyson/

http://liberatingminds.forumotion.com/t87-short-summary-of-15-of-stef-s-debating-techniques

=-=

smaller

Free: Gun Training with the Non-Aggression Principle, Vol 1: Basic Handgun and Rifle with Jared Waltz

Get these nifty Shiny Badges!:

ShinyBadges

-=-=-=Get this free book!:
rats

=-=-

Boleh VPN virtual private network and Seedboxes

-=-=-=

Torrent the Feens to keep us drone proof!:

=-=-=-=-
And remember: Freedom Feens Buttons are now ALWAYS on Sale – 10 for price of 5. NOW INCLUDES DATA DVD WITH COPY OF “GUNS AND WEED” MOVIE, AND 68 EPISODES OF THE FEENS!

Freedom Feens BitCoin:
11qS83qoY782uibvHXmrWZf1PfTBDKmL3

Worms!

TITHE TO THE FEENS NOT THE STATE!:

This entry was posted in Live Radio and tagged , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to Why do so many atheists need a “great man” to worship? – Freedom Feens live radio archive

  1. Ben Stone says:

    Halsingen
    Sorry for not responding directly to your last post, but the site software doesn’t supply a “reply” button on your post.
    Here’s the real point that you seem to be missing. (on purpose?)
    Here in the US (not in the marble halls of some foreign university), when you have a person who is deeply intrenched in mainstream politics, and they refer to themselves as a “federalist” they aren’t speaking of anarchist thought of any kind. They are directly linking themselves to the US Constitution, its drafters, and its supporters. This is a fact. It’s not an opinion. The gentleman in question would not in any way claim to be an anarchist. What some professor has to say about a word means nothing to the guy who runs the website in question. In the US, for the last 230 years, the word “federalist” has specifically referred to Hamilton and those who follow his example. Now I’m done with this topic. It’s like arguing that water is wet. It bores me.

    Ben

  2. Carl Feen says:

    “Confirmation Bias” is the word Ben was looking for around 20:00

  3. Halsingen says:

    Regarding federalism, haven’t federalist principles been central to how stateless anarcho societies (like for example pre-Christian Scandinavia) have been structured or organized, rather than involving a state or constitution?

    • Ben Stone says:

      Halsingen
      No. Federalism is the opposite of a stateless anarcho society. Federalism is by definition a powerful federal or central government. Additionally, in America the “federalists” were the actual people who set up the current government.
      From Wiki: Federalism is a political concept in which a group of members is bound together by covenant with a governing representative head. The term “federalism” is also used to describe a system of government in which sovereignty is constitutionally divided between a central governing authority and constituent political units (such as states or provinces).

      • Halsingen says:

        @ Ben Stone

        According to Harold Barclay “People without Government: An Anthropology of Anarchy”, anarchic federalism is when different groups with common interests federate with other similar groups to form a regional federation and in turn regional federations join with others to form yet another broader federation. Each member of a federation has a right to withdraw if in disagreement.

        He also compares this with the African segmentary lineage system. In both cases the most effective authority is the smallest unit, decreasing directly as one ascends to broader levels of integration.

        http://www.amazon.com/People-without-Government-Anthropology-Anarchy/dp/1871082161

        Doesn’t this fit well with for example the 11th century historian Saxo Grammaticus’ description of the “Danes” as a loose confederation of Jutes, Sealanders and Scanians?

        They’re still today represented in the Danish coat of arms, by the three lions: http://i.imgur.com/IPTQC9P.jpg

        • Ben Stone says:

          Halsingen
          From what you posted, it looks like both you and Harold Barclay confuse a federal government with a confederation.

          BTW, Micheal is correct.
          If it looks like a skunk, smells like a skunk, lives in a skunk hole under a log, and refers to itself as a skunk, it’s likely a skunk.
          The federalists have been a specific group of Americans. They have a large body of writings explaining their positions. None of them are compatible with anarcho-capitalist thought.

          Ben

          • Halsingen says:

            @ Ben Stone

            No. 1800’s anarchist thinkers stressed the idea of federalism, designated to facilitate relations between increasingly larger and more widespread groups of people. Harold Barclay also writes:

            “Anarchist federalism should not be confused with the kind of ‘confederacy’ advocated by such men as John Calhoun and other early 19th century American political thinkers. Anarchists would be sympathetic to such a view only in that it proposes to strip central government of most of its authority, permitting member states to withdraw from the system if they see fit. However, from an anarchist point of view, Calhoun and his sympathisers were inconsistent, in that they were primarily concerned about maximizing the Power of the several states within the Union. Had they been interested in the freedom of the individual unit members, they would also have recognized the legitimate right of the counties to withdraw from states, of towns to withdraw from counties and of individuals to withdraw from towns.”

            Regarding Alexander Hamilton and his Federalist Party, is it not seen as one of the proofs of his political skills or cunningness, that his nationalist and centralist party took the name “federalists” while the opposition who supported the Articles of Confederation, and rather wanted a more decentralized United States like Switzerland, were called “anti-federalists”?

    • MichaelWDean says:

      Well, except that the blogger we’re talking about was a staffer for Governor Rick Perry.
      http://thefederalist.com/author/seandavis/

      MWD

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.