How is this justifiable? Kenyatta National Hospital is the last place to be admitted in if you can help it!

The largest referral hospital in the East Africa region is Kenyatta National Hospital in Nairobi. That is the only thing positive about it. I was there yesterday to see my uncle who is admitted with a head injury following a road accident a few days ago. As a taxpayer, the money the government takes from me is to be used to provide essential services that would otherwise be out of reach of most people, why this isn’t happening when the same government is willing to spend 450 million to build a retirement office for some old geezer who has a few years to live and more than 200 million to renovate the house for the number two clown running this government!

How on mother earth do you have people hawking in wards selling groundnuts, airtime and I don’t know what else?

The nurses don’t allow anyone in the hospital out of visiting hours, I have no problem with this, but I have problem if they don’t do their work. How for example, does a person serve a person who can’t see or hear food and does not feed them? Are you trying to kill them faster or how is it?

If your relatives don’t visit, then you don’t get your bedding changed and most likely you will not be washed! I find this so horrid, I don’t even want to contemplate.

I get angry writing about the state of affairs in this hospital and so I end this rant here!

Atheists, you can believe in God and still be an Atheist! Hahahahahahaha

Well, my friends, I really must say that the world has really gone bonkers going by what some people write on the web. Take for instance, this post about atheism. We are told

That’s right, belief in God and Atheism are not mutually exclusive. You can believe that God created the heavens and the earth, and still affirm Atheism.

Please can someone tell me the definition of atheism again! Here is a person who asserts the universe was created, class dismissed now go home, forget the requirement for providing evidence.

And please, tell me, maybe I am missing something here, how does the above position become

the only intellectually honest position to take in this age of scientific enlightenment?

Then it starts to border on the insane, or else how would someone write

This is the age of Answers in Genesis, Creation Ministries International, and The Institute for Creation Research. Let’s face it, Biblical creation is a scientific fact. 

Someone please hit me on the face, I must be dreaming! Next time you are asked what is an oxymoron in an English lesson, here is one, biblical creation and scientific fact in the same sentence! And for lack of a better word, this fellow is an ignoramus, for, please tell, how would someone in this day and age belief such BS?

You can believe that God created everything as recounted in the Bible, but that after creation, God died. You can affirm a godless universe while still believing God created everything.

Who created god? Why did this particular god create anything then commit suicide? What was god doing during god time just before creation? What did god use to create the universe? And why the bible? Why not the Vedas, which are by far more poetic, more sublime than the bible, the Bhagavad gita,  or any other religious text? What is so special about the bible?

It solves all the insurmountable problems with the failed hypothesis of Evolution, and it accommodates all the facts of science.

Last I checked, it was Laplace, who said he didn’t require the god hypothesis. It has no explanatory power and means nothing. It really is sad for someone who most likely haven’t read a page of any book on evolution to call it a failed hypothesis!

I can’t go on reading this trope, I will go crazy just responding to him, so as Nietzsche says in Beyond Good and Evil

“He who fights monsters should see to it that he himself does not become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.”

I rest my case!


On a lighter note

Religions given till the end of the month to prove it

and you really can’t beat this god is bigger

and if you want to know why many times we have problems with the religious, look no further than a new life

has the definition of faith changed? What is faith?

and for those of you heathens who are suffering and need to explain it away, look no further than A warning from the dungeon

I couldn’t make sense of what this fellow was saying from off the top of his head, may one of you could help with that: Is atheism really the right option for scientists

and those yet to be saved, what are you waiting for? It is free will all over again! Redemption is a free will

Do you want to go to heaven? Then it is time to start hating like there is no tomorrow, yes, the bible recommends it! You cannot serve two masters

And finally, the reason god came down to save us from himself, so that we can learn forgiveness! Isn’t this awesome? The power of god’s forgiveness.

wise sayings

A.C Grayling’s The Good Book which is a compilation of short discourses, sayings and words of wisdom that I would recommend for those of you who have some time to spare. In the spirit of living sharing, here are a few quotes that I have chosen to share with you my friends:

Friendship made over a book is enduring and a great solace.

He who says, I do not know, has already attained the half of all knowledge.

In three cases lying is permissible: in war, in reconciling man to man and in appeasing one’s spouse.

Alas! it is vain to exist: all existence is vain.


do people still hold such beliefs?

Everyday you read a post or comments by christ followers that leave you scratching your head wondering whether you are in a bad dream or you have gone back, using time travel to the second century. For, please tell, how can someone write


Being ‘schismatic’ is very serious- it means being cut off from the Vicar of Christ on earth, the pope and it was the first pope, st. Peter, who Jesus put in charge of ‘the keys’- ie deciding who gets into heaven, to put it simply. From the beginning the ‘experts’ in the church believed that ‘ outside the catholic church there is no salvation’ so it’s obviously very serious indeed to be in schism.

Anyone who is not a member of the visible church on earth might not end up in hell but if they don’t end up in hell its because of the graces coming to them through the catholic church, although not sure I’m explaining it very well. Speaking personally, I would not feel safe in a church of only 400 years or so, I’d want to be in the one founded by Christ.

Seriously! I don’t know what else to say except that we have lost this person permanently to the insane asylum, however, should they recover and return to the world of the rational, I shall have a beer ready for them.

The naturalists fairy tale! Which one?

Our resident apologist, whose main occupation, it seems to yours truly, is to misrepresent atheists and their arguments while at the same time claiming superiority of a christian world view. Those who have visited his site, by now know that he claims to love science, well when it seems to lend credence to his religious opinions and denigrate it as soon as it challenges the religious authority.

In this post, which I think he dedicates to Rusell, is a ruse to attack naturalism and its philosophical claims while at the same time purporting to show why such a view is false. We are told,

In this world we can now begin a little to understand things, and a little to master them by help of science, which has forced its way step by step against the Christian religion, against the churches, and against the opposition of all the old precepts.

which is true. It is through advancement of science and a scientific worldview that we have come to the conclusion that we are not descended from two ignoramuses, who had conversations with snakes and had the task to name all other animals apart from working so hard at populating the earth, that was lots of work for eve! Was she having twins? Just a thought 😛

It seems that it can’t be pointed out often enough that science and theology are different subjects.

But this we already know. Theology is the study of nothing ans science deals with what is knowable.

At least, the New Atheists seem to have so much confidence in the idea that science is theology (and metaphysics) that they feel no need to give any reason for the strange conclusion that science answers questions about God’s existence.

For all the crimes we could be guilty of, we are not guilty of thinking theology is science. Metaphysics that our apologists is parroting here presents no testable evidence. It is a word game where the person who can talk the most is sure to win and in this case, the apologist hopes to carry the day. Whenever the religious makes claims about god that are in the purview of science, of course science must have a say. If you don’t like it, don’t make claims that are testable using the scientific method!

But it’s not only theology of which such people are ignorant. Any real respect for history would at least acknowledge the facts of past as it actually occurred.

This is an outright lie, and he knows it. We know Cicero was a Roman leader, that Marcus Aurelius lived and wrote beautiful meditations, that the church was Inquisition, that much of the NT was agreed several centuries after the said events, that the OT was written over a long period of time and that Jesus is a myth from beginning to end. So what history don’t we know?

 the earliest science was developed by Christians, and sponsored by the Church.

Did you read that? So Galileo was actually sponsored by the church when he was asked to recant? That Giodarno Bruno was sponsored by the church? You know this is why a great friend of mine calls these guys silly people, for this is being silly!

Almost no culture has believed that the universe would have regular patterns which could be observed by the kinds of experiments science uses as its stock and trade.

Let us grant him that theology makes observations of the universe. Could he list them, I know, you, my friends would want to know.

The west is so saturated in science that we never think to question this fact, and, therefore, never notice that most of us can offer no reason why reality would be this way.

If science involves observation, analysis and [experimenting] then there is no other way understanding reality. Don’t get me wrong, we can appreciate music and art without having to do experiments and I don’t mean to say we don’t learn from the humanities, no we do, but they also whenever applicable apply the scientific method.

Naturalists, for instance, can give no explanation as to why the universe should have this surprising consistency.

We can, but can the theologian do so? If the theologian doesn’t know about this world we inhabit, how could he know about a world only accessible to the dead?

David Hume famously pointed out that belief in science, as far as the naturalist can see, is based on a logical fallacy.

What fallacy please, do tell.

It was Christians, and other monotheists, who invested the effort in developing modern science because they held the conviction that a rational creator would make an ordered universe.

Seriously! And then we are told we don’t know history? Someone tell me the god of the Chinese, the Indians and all other men and women who didn’t believe in ghosts but helped to develop science?

For Russell to claim, four-hundred years after the fact, that the Christians who invented, supported, and sponsored science somehow have a less scientific worldview than those atheists who blindly trust this inexplicable Christian invention is simply astonishing.

For a blind man to call people with eyes blind is to me, rank madness! Those christians or god believers lived in a culture where the existence of god was taken as a given. However, great their contributions were, we can say, without fear, they were wrong to ascribe the workings of nature to ghosts, gods or phantoms, whatever your fancy! So what if they were christians. Our concern is the present crop of christians who only appreciate science when it cures them from funny ailments but denigrate it as soon as it shows a belief in god to be a delusion.

None of this precludes the idea that naturalists can be great scientists; the tools of science can be used by anyone. But to say that the success of science somehow refutes the belief that predicted it would work strikes me as deeply irrational thinking.

Is this statement strange? It shouldn’t be. We have always held that a believer in ghosts can be a good scientist so this apologist decides to use the statement in his favour.

I conclude by saying it is wrong and will be always wrong to believe anything based on insufficient evidence. And it is irrational to think belief in ghosts is rational.



Does Science Disprove the Bible? For the umpteenth time, yes it does!

Yours truly wonders whether apologists for christ usually have weekly meetings where they discuss the story for the week and then have the points all shared out for discussion. If that isn’t the case, I wouldn’t want some help in understanding why they, almost to the letter, keep repeating the same tired arguments? Is it in the hope that by saying something several times it gets to be true?

Having said that, let us listen to what this good christian has to tell us on the relationship between the bible and science.

He starts by asserting the special privilege of christianity, the bible and the stories therein

After all, science has disproved the very basic story line of the Bible, creation from nothing, right?

A statement that places the bible a rank higher than all other mythologies that our ancestors used as explanation about their origins, what caused things to happen in a certain way and so on. My question simply is, what makes the story of some goat herders thousands of years ago so important?

We are first asked

First, is it within the power of science to prove anything?

And I think yes. Science, considered broadly offers explanations that show why things are one way or other way.

He goes on to write

 Science does not produce fact, it takes data and produces likely scenarios to explain that data.

I would suggest to the brother to jump of a cliff if he will instead of falling, he will keep going up, if gravity is just a theory and not a fact.

We are then told

For all of its explaining power, it is only a theory, and can never be a fact.

Which, unfortunately for our friend, evolution is both a theory and fact.

By definition theories cannot become facts.

The germ theory is not a fact going by this argument, the theory of relativity is not a fact, theory of gravity is not a fact, Faraday’s theory of electro-magnetism is not a fact, and the list is endless? Did I miss something?

I hope that smart Christians who are interested in science will understand this and provide equally compelling theories that also fit with the worldview and data of the Bible.

I thought they already have, and it goes by the title Idiot design or something close, or the brother isn’t aware of this?

Second, can we completely divorce science from religion and philosophy?

This question commits a fallacy of ambiguity. The author wants to put us in a tight box. We can completely divorce science from religion but not from philosophy, as long as philosophy here doesn’t include attempts to justify a zombie apocalypse or men walking on water and so on, but philosophy taken as a love of knowledge will always go hand in hand with science.

If we stripped science from all vestiges of any worldview, there would be no way to start the process of science.

This is an outright lie. We would still do science without religion. Science, taken as a way to learn about nature or things in nature would still go on. We would still be able to make observations and draw conclusions without recourse to the god hypothesis and I know the apologist must know this.

For example, how do we know that the physical universe actually exists and is worth studying?

We don’t need gods for this. All we need is man to be curious, which she already is.

we assume the laws of logic, but why should we assume them?

These laws have been developed over time by different men over a long period of time. They are not gifts from a deity but results of long hours of thought and reflection.

we have to make assumptions about the universe in order to justify science and to justify scientific methodology. However, these assumptions do not come from science itself.

We could as well start from observing the universe and make assumptions then test this assumptions. No gods required, no outside help.

Without some sort of philosophy and worldview, when we study the natural world we would only be left with a set of data, but no way to interpret it.

Be that as it may, you still haven’t made a case for religion.

 I submit that we can only validate our assumptions with the biblical worldview.

The Hindu would not agree, the Muslim thinks you are a fraud, the Scientologist and the Mormon thinks of your book as a load of crap. So no, we make assumptions based on things we observe in nature and not some old book written by goat herders thousands of years ago.

 I think science relies upon religion in order to justify its assumptions.

Am being generous here, I would want to be told just five assumptions of science that need religion. Am patient.

 Furthermore, I think people overstate their case to say that science is the only source of truth.

Here the problem has to do with the definition what science encompass.  Once we are clear on what the other means when he talks about science, we can continue the argument.

 Is there no truth to be found in the philosophy department at the local university?

I don’t whether philosophy is concerned with truth or with asking the right question?

It needs philosophy and religion in order to function properly.

Science needs philosophy but not religion. There is nowhere science makes use of religion but religion has continued to survive for adapting itself to current scientific thinking. It needs science to validate its miraculous claims!

Does science contradict religion? What did you think, of course it does!

Yours truly is of the opinion that theist apologists are either not creative or you can only repeat the same lie enough times before it becomes tired. And for the purposes of this post, even if this does seem as beating an already dead horse, it can’t be said enough times that theists are simply wrong and no matter how much they try to comport religion and science, it simply doesn’t work in their favour.

In this post, the author presents several fallacious arguments in support of theism and I will in this post try to respond to just a few without making this post very long, so dear reader, please bear with me! I have tried to summarize most of the trope in the post but anyone with time on their hands could read it for their journey towards Judaism 2.0.

(1) If science contradicts religion, how do atheists explain the fact that most of the great scientists of the past believed in God and took the Bible seriously?

This doesn’t make the bible true. It only means that bright individuals can believe stupid things.

(2) If religion is an obstacle to science, how do atheists get round the fact that empirical science first arose in Christian Europe, three centuries before the rise of Darwinism?

Evolution isn’t the only science you dimwit!

(3) Why did the ‘founding fathers’ of modern science believe in God?

Most people believed in god and thought it was a sufficient explanation for causes they didn’t understand. Nothing special about it.

(4) Atheists commonly reject the design argument for God’s existence because of the problem of evil, arguing that a world marred by death, disease, cruelty and suffering cannot be the creation of an infinitely good and powerful Being.

No you twit! The problem of evil contradicts a benevolent god. The argument from design is rejected on its own, because it is a bad argument. There is nothing that says the designer has to be a god and two, the key word is nature appears to be designed, not that it is designed.

(5) The advance of science over the last half-century has revealed powerful new evidence that life and the universe are the product of intelligent design, especially in the fields of astrophysics and microbiology

What evidence?

6) The realms of microbiology and biochemistry provide equally compelling evidence that life in all its forms is the product of intelligent design rather than unguided natural forces.

You start with the assumption that life is designed and conclude life is designed. This is not a bad argument, it is plain stupid. Besides, all available evidence point to Nature as the source of all life,  and nothing outside of it.

(7) Atheism is not only challenged by the cumulative evidence for intelligent design uncovered by the progress of science; it cannot even answer the most fundamental of all questions: why does anything exist in the first place? Is the universe self-sufficient and self-explanatory or does it require an intelligent cause?

Atheism is a lack of belief in gods, has nothing to do with ID. The question that you think is fundamental can’t be answered by positing gods and yes, if by the universe you mean nature, yes, it is a self sufficient and doesn’t require an intelligence out of it.

The cosmological argument for God’s existence addresses this vital question, and is based on the premise that something cannot come from nothing – a self-evident truth supported by logic and experience.

No, the cosmological argument goes nowhere. The simple question is what caused your god? If on the other hand s/h/it is eternal, the same is true of matter. So what would god be doing?

Given these self-evident truths, does our knowledge of the universe suggest that it is self-existent?

What truths?

If, then, God is real, what can the cosmological argument tell us about His attributes and character?

Which god and what is god?

A great deal. All we have to do, as St. Paul reminds us in Romans 1: 19-20, is look at His creation – at all that He has made.

Unfortunately this verse tells us nothing other that god is invisible, how that is something you are yet to me!

This tells us, first of all, that since the universe and all it contains is unimaginably vast and powerful in terms of its mass, extent, and energy, its Creator must be supremely powerful.

How did you get to this point of the universe requiring a creator? And yes, nature is unimaginably vast and powerful. It is the sufficient cause of all it encompasses. Am waiting for you to tell me the boundaries of nature if you can…… and am patient, very patient!

Secondly, since the universe contains living, intelligent, and personal beings, and many other hallmarks of design, its Creator must be living, intelligent, and personal.

Far from it. Attributing human characteristics of goodness, intelligence and animation to nature will not get you anywhere. Nature need not be intelligent but it allows for intelligent beings disposed in a certain manner to exist.

Thirdly, since human beings possess moral awareness and feel guilty when they do wrong, their Creator must be Goodness personified, or ‘holy’, to use the language of the Bible.

You should have been using the language of the bible all along for that is where you get such silly ideas. And no again, man acts in a certain way because that is his nature and gods, whatever they are, having nothing to do with our morals. Goodness only make sense when comparing two things, what do you mean when you say god is good? What does it mean to say his nature is goodness?

Finally, since the distance between non-existence and existence is an infinite one, a God who can create an entire universe out of nothing must be all-knowing and all-powerful.

What is infinity? Do you just use the word because you hear it? Have you considered what it means? One, you haven’t established anywhere that the universe was created, the how and why, two you have not said what god is and lastly why it is necessary for one to exist.

(9) Atheists commonly argue that Darwinian evolution provides an adequate explanation of the appearance of design in Nature, without needing to invoke God as its intelligent cause.

There is nothing about atheism that requires you to hold evolution as true. But most atheists understand the evidence for evolution and why it is both fact and theory. You on the other hand seem to me to not have read about it.

(10) Another feature of life which points to God and cannot be explained by atheist philosophers and scientists, is the phenomenon of human consciousness.

So you think positing a ghost would settle the matter! Nature has arranged atoms in some of its creatures in a certain way that they are conscious, nothing magical about it except that we don’t understand how nature structured this.

Philosophy and science both support the teaching of Christian theology that humans are spiritual as well as material beings, created by God.

This statement could only have been made by an ignoramus.

At the end of his life, France’s best-known existentialist and atheist philosopher, Jean Paul Sartre, confessed: “I do not feel that I am the product of chance, a speck of dust in the universe, but someone who was expected, prepared, prefigured. In short, a king whom only a Creator could put here; the idea of a creating hand refers to God.”

Many people have said so many things at the point of death. This unfortunately doesn’t bring your ghosts into existence.

(11) Science does not and cannot rule out supernatural events like miracles.

What is a miracle and what purpose would they serve?


Atheist, Dead On Morgue Slab, Wakes After Meeting Jesus In Heaven!

No, am not trying to get numbers, but I wouldn’t complain if they increased but this link which I had been sent by my good friend left me wondering how low will people go before they realize they are silly!

We have here, a fellow, Ian McCormack, tell us with a straight face that his soul left his body for a tour of hell and heaven.  Yours truly ain’t a scientist, but that will not stop me from recognising BS when I see one. And this tops the list of BS. He died, was in the morgue and rose again, I don’t know why Christians are still sticking to the old Jesus story when Ian is here as proof that fools can actually resurrect!

If you have 10 minutes which you feel philanthropic with, that is, time you can waste, then listen to this fellow convince his interviewer of his visit to hell, forget that no one has been able to defend why a loving god would create hell, and then he talks about heaven which as far as I can tell is informed by what he already has read, seen around him coupled with, for lack of a better term, childish imagination.

and here is part 2 of the interview