we have gone beyond the dogs, maybe to the worms

How would one explain police using teargas on primary school children?

I will be honest, I hate cops. In my books they are at the lowest level of scam with politicians, prison warders and thieves. They exist to protect the property of the rich. They follow orders like oxen driving an ox plough. In this country, cops are some of the lowly paid civil servants and are the first to obstruct any attempts to challenge the government. One wonders whether between their ears there is any brain left. It is impossible to reason with a cop, no matter how hard you try.

Do people have conscience? Where is this greed going to end? Who in his right mind grabs a school play ground? This is a person whose child goes to an international school, flop their exams are exported to go study abroad and come here to land a government job where they continue to steal. Am honestly tired of these fucks!

Some spin doctor will say they students were used by activists or their parents. That doesn’t justify using teargas on them. The thing in question is why grab a school field?


And this tweet describes in great detail how this government is run

Why evil disproves atheism

And yes you read that correctly. Today morning I read this post by Nan and now we have the same dude, in the break between replacing the shoes in his mouth, telling us atheism is disproved by evil. He tells us

the existence of evil turns out to be a bigger problem for atheists to explain than for theists. The kind of evil Dawkins and the rest of the civilized world abhor doesn’t disprove God—it disproves atheism.

In an earlier post where I tackled this issue, I wrote and I think it is true that atheism being a lack of belief in deities has no obligation to account for anything. Atheists can delve into such topics not because of their atheism, but because they are human and these and many others are human questions. He continues to tell us

While it’s commonly thought that only theists have to explain the existence of evil, the truth is every worldview does. Eastern pantheistic religions try to get around the problem by denying that evil even exists. Evil is an illusion, they say (and according to them, so are you!).

It is not true that every worldview has to explain the problem of evil. This problem, if we can call it so, is a problem for a person who claims to believe in a personal god, who is all powerful and all loving. A believer in an indifferent god who for all we care could have created the world by mistake and said fuck it, let it be has no need to explain away evil. The person who insists that others have this problem is either daft or doesn’t understand what the problem of evil is. Any normal person will be outraged by the inhumane acts we do to each other in the name of gods. Turek thinks that by having issue with this, atheists are trying to have their cake and eat it. He says this because we have said the universe as far as we can tell is indifferent to our frail feelings. The earth continues to rotate, the sun to give light regardless of how many of our brothers we kill. It never stops for a moment of silence even when it kills hundred of thousands in a tsunami. But to each of us, there are things that are inimical to our well being and some have labeled them evil, some bad things. I didn’t do philosophy for long, you see I wasn’t trying to become a philosopher but I think this

On the other hand, if evil actually does exist, then atheists have an even bigger problem. The existence of evil actually establishes the existence of God.

is a bad argument or conclusion. How would one come from the existence of one to the other? How do you make this jump? He tells us Augustine puzzled over the following question

  1. God created all things.
  2. Evil is a thing.
  3. Therefore, God created evil.

Is premise 1 valid? No. I also never said English is my strength, I have tried to make sense of this next argument and I can’t make head or tails of what Turek is saying. He writes

Evil is like rust in a car: If you take all of the rust out of a car, you have a better car; if you take the car out of the rust, you have nothing. Or you could say that evil is like a cut in your finger: If you take the cut out of your finger, you have a better finger; if you take the finger out of your cut, you have nothing. In other words, evil only makes sense against the backdrop of good. That’s why we often describe evil as negations of good things. We say someone is immoral, unjust, unfair, dishonest, etc. We could put it this way: The shadows prove the sunshine. There can be sunshine without shadows, but there can’t be shadows without sunshine. In other words, there can be good without evil, but there can’t be evil without good.

Though I know I have seen a good shadows with no sunshine. Good and bad are man’s way of seeing the world. The lion kills the gazelle for food, thereby denying it a chance to live. Is this evil? No. It’s just how the world works. Man has divided the world between good and evil with the result that the world is seen as evil. The world just is. Turek tells us

C. S. Lewis was once an atheist who thought evil disproved God. He later realized he was stealing from God in order to argue against Him. He wrote, “[As an atheist] my argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust?”

but here, it is evident C.S Lewis argument was faulty. It was unsound. If he was an atheist and blamed god for shit, then his head should be checked. He was probably confused. The world isn’t unjust. It has no feelings. To assign it such is to anthropomorphize. And for all the Muslims killing in their god’s name, Turek has this to say

Just who is this God? Allah isn’t a candidate because according to Islamic doctrine Allah is arbitrary, and thus can’t be the unchanging standard of good. The true God is the God of the Bible who is revealed as the unchanging ground of all goodness.

Where is paarsurrey when you need him? Maybe he could clear this up with Turek and give us an answer we could all use whenever we have to talk about god. This post is already long enough. Whatever is Turek’s profession, he need to spend more time thinking. If this is his best attempt, he could try his hand elsewhere, maybe as a fisherman where the only talent would be to lay nets.

Public service announcement

We interrupt our usual broadcast to raise a matter that is of utmost to us here. Alarm has been raised to what is being seen as a move by the current regime and its minions to clamp down on free speech in the name of fighting terrorism. Early in the year, the high court sitting in Nairobi suspended parts of a controversial security law that had been passed  in record time and received presidential assent soon after regardless of the several question marks raised by the civil society.

There have been reports of bloggers being harassed. As Voltaire said eons ago, I will defend your right to say whatever you have to say, but avoid the death if I can. I may not agree with it, but say, you must be allowed to say.

Looking at my twitter TL, the news isn’t encouraging

I wrote before we went for elections we would be fucked several times over, I didn’t think it would come to such serious fucks. I don’t know where it will end, but it doesn’t look good. I will peruse the amendment to see whether it defines calling Christians dumb as terrorism.

There are further commentaries on Aljazeera and Human rights watch.

The amendment[pdf]

I will end this post with the poem attributed to  Pastor Martin Niemöller, for I think it is relevant here;

First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.

Are there questions atheism can’t answer?

Rebecca thinks there is. Before we get to discussing her posts, I don’t make a pretext to have any answers to any questions. All I am interested in dialogue and I don’t promise to be nice to everyone, but I will try. It appears to me that to most theists there are only two positions, either one is a theist[ Christian] mainly or atheist. Which world do these people live in? Is it really that hard to educate oneself on the variety of religious beliefs or are people just lazy?

I could be guilty of logical fallacies of whatever manner and I would hope that sometimes you point them out to me. That said, Rebecca’s starts by saying atheism necessitates a belief in evolution. There is no requirement in a science class to believe anything, all one must needs to do is to understand what the theory or law attempts to explain. I wouldn’t be surprised if there was an atheist who didn’t understand evolution, this is expected. There is no requirement that atheists be a certain class of people. They appear in every segment of society and that explains why some of them are in the army.

That the religious person believes man is distinct from animals doesn’t make it so. Man dies just as a dog sometimes more painfully, they still must fuck just like dogs to reproduce. If there is any difference, it is in degree but never in kind. The argument that we are better than other animals is like calling a fish stupid because it hasn’t learnt to ride a bicycle.

The Christian has been made to believe that man is fallen, in need of salvation from a god who could have created him better but failed to do so. She further believes that this god loved him so much to come and die to save her from himself and sees nothing odd with such a vicarious redemption. Asking a christian parent if they would kill themselves to forgive their children of a wrong or kill their only daughter for the transgressions of their neighbour’s daughter are met with blank stares and they think this is fine if it is done by a god. Is the requirement to believe be that one should forego their ability to reason?

And now we get to Rebecca’s big question. She says

where did evil come from? If life has a common descent, if we’re born with no natural bent toward evil, what injected evil into the equation?

To answer this question, we must agree on what evil is. The Catholic Encyclopedia[read it for a longer explanation] defines it as what ought not to exist. Since the definition of evil is broad, it includes limited intelligence for which every Christian seems to suffer from especially with regard to discussions concerning religion. Whence is the source of all this? Since all the things described as evil are those that are inimical to man, they all have their origin in the subjective experience of man. Evil is man’s idea of the world viewed in a certain way. It is not evil when a park of  hyenas chases a pride of lions from their game. It is how life is.

She continues to ask

But society is nothing more than people interacting with one another. So how and why did humans start acting in hateful ways toward people who were different from them? Why did the strong decide to take from the weak instead of using their strength for the greater good?

which before I attempt to answer, I would be interested in knowing the Christian answer to the question. And I hope she doesn’t intend to say that when man ate the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil, evil came to the world. I do hope she has a better answer than that. I don’t know why the strong decided to take from the weak. Our morality is as Nietzsche called a slave morality. A struggle between the noble and the common, the master and the slave. Everything the master does is evil from the eye of the slave. To the master the slave is not fully a person.

As I conclude this piece, as I have said elsewhere, I don’t think it is the task of atheism to account for any question. And as an atheist I can live all my life saying I don’t know and I will be half right all the time. I don’t know of any atheist who blames god for evil as that would include a contradiction. The problem of evil is not a problem for the atheist. It is as anyone with an understanding greater than that of a toddler would know, a problem for theism, especially one who believes in an omnipotent and omnibenevolent being who is also personal.

the 10 commandments of atheists

I guess you have heard of the international contest where atheists were to offer modern alternatives to the famous Decalogue. A panel of judges selected what they felt were the ten winning entries. This post isn’t really about the creative exercise but about those theists like Ken Ham and others who seem angered that atheists could actually conceive of making commandments, the reserve of their god!

One would expect that since each entry has an explanation given by the author, the theist would at least read to understand but then it seems that is expecting too much.

The OP tells us these two

#9. There is no one right way to live.

#10. Leave the world a better place than you found it.

(non) commands are not only entirely baseless and indefensible on atheism, but are actually contradictory.

Our task here is to see whether this is the case. It has become apparent that most theists have the understanding of a roast potato. Atheism is a lack of belief in deities. To make it mean much more than this is to ask for too much and it will not hold. The statement that the above are indefensible in atheism is true not in the way intended by this theist but because atheism makes no claims.

The theist wants us to believe that the statement there is no one right way to live is a meaningless statement. But is it? What comes to mind is , is there one right way of being a christian? Is the asceticism the right one or is it being a monk, priest, nun or married? As there are different people and different interests, there cannot be any one right way to live.

To say live the world a better place doesn’t restrict you to one way of living. Struggle for freedom of expression in a place where this is prohibited leaves the world better than you found it especially if these fruits are achieved. There is no contradiction that ensues between 9 & 10 and if there is, kindly show me.

How such a creative exercise is reducible to

This sums up the entire exercise. Without God, there is no meaning and purpose to our existence. Without meaning and purpose, we can’t fail to reach out goal, and we can’t fulfill our purpose, because none exists.

is beyond my understanding. The theist having been fed by his pastor that he needs god to have meaning in his life and because he is unable to think for himself accepts this as a truth and lives his life with such belief. Anyone who doesn’t believe as he does is doing it wrong.

To argue that something is true because it appears in the buybull is to me evidence of how poorly one thinks. With such an argument, anything that appears in a book is true because it is written. How silly!

If he was trying his hand at ridicule, he failed, if at criticism he didn’t even make a dent. Atheists and any non believer has every right to creative endeavours, of which this was one. To throw tantrums at this is unreasonable.


Atheism and terrorism

If you are an atheist, you may have to reconsider your plans to travel to Saudi Arabia. The kingdom of Saudi Arabia has included in definition of terrorism

calling for atheist thought in any form, or calling into question the fundamentals of the Islamic religion on which this country is based”.

I sympathize with atheists in Saudi. If this isn’t an affront to freedom of thought, then I don’t know what is.

Meanwhile pope cuddles has said, or so I hear, that religions should not be ridiculed. That ridiculing someone’s faith is close to ridiculing his mother. Why should sincerely held beliefs not be open to ridicule and criticism? How can they be changed?

On truth

You by now know what happens when yours truly is feeling lazy, he asks a question or several of them.

In the bybill, when Jeebus Hubris Christ is asked by Pilate what is truth, he doesn’t answer the question. We can assume that either he didn’t know the answer or he didn’t think we should know the truth. Any mention of Jeebus Hubris Christ made on this blog refers not to a real person but the narrative construct in the New Testament of the good book.

  1. What is truth?
  2. How can we get to truth?
  3. Why is truth necessary?

The ignorance of theists

This post is a response to the irony of atheism. I am not suggesting that all the theists are ignorant but most of them, especially those who write on the internet about atheism, seem to be ignorant of their subject matter. I will be their educator, for free.

Atheism is a lack of belief in deities. I am sorry it can’t mean anything more than. You can cry a river all you want but it will not require a leap of faith, unless of course you are really ignorant.

Humanism removes the need for the divine for the supernatural or divine in human affairs. Atheists have no belief in the supernatural. Humanism is not a synonym for atheism. To use the two interchangeably can only mean you neither understand the meaning of one or the other or both.

Yours truly is unable to make sense of this

Consequently any movement or political system based upon Atheism and Humanism – Marxism,  Communism and/or Catholicism: Humanism masquerading as a religion for example – without fail end up enslaving and persecuting the very one’s they claim to represent and serve.

Is he saying atheism is like Catholicism or that humanism is like Catholicism? How does a philosophy based on man’s ability to rationally solve humanities problems enslave and persecute the very people it is trying to improve? Is there something am missing or is there a memo that didn’t get to me?

Someone please tell me whether Stalin’s Russia did all it did in an attempt to promote humanism and atheism. I am ignorant in this matters and since it gets repeated everywhere even by people who don’t know the meaning of atheism, we need this matter cleared up.