How the middle class coped in Moi era

[Iconoclastes]

A young man, who came of age when Mr Mwai Kibaki became President in 2002, and only remembers the Daniel arap Moi regime for the free milk it provided to pupils, asked me what it was like being a young adult during the Moi era.

Like the vast majority of the country’s youth, he had little or no recollection of those days when Mr Moi strode Kenya like a colossus.

I wanted to give a standard textbook response like: “Those were the dark days of corruption in every public institution. There was no freedom of expression and opponents of the President were either jailed or tortured.”
Strangely, the first words that came out of my mouth were: “We had a lot of parties in those days.”

MIDDLE CLASS

The truth is we, or to be more specific, the middle class in Nairobi, did have a lot of parties back then.
And by parties I do not mean the large
nyama choma fests or showing-off type revelries that the rich are prone to host today.

Our parties were the impromptu type where a bunch of friends would spontaneously gather, have a few beers, eat whatever was in the fridge, and dance to Tracy Chapman tapes (CDs had not entered the market then).
It was not like we were hedonistic or anything; it was just our way of coping with the times.

DISSIDENT MOVEMENT

The truth is, if we did not have those parties, we might have gone out and started a dissident movement or something, or run naked along Kenyatta Avenue in downtown Nairobi in protest.

We didn’t want to take that route, not because we didn’t care, but it seemed so futile, and yes, also perhaps because we were not courageous enough.
Nor did we want to go into exile or seek asylum overseas as so many young Kenyans were doing at that time.

We thought that if we just lay low and had a good time, the wave of madness around us might eventually subside.
It is not like we were politically unconscious. Oh no! Our (hidden) bookshelves were filled with the revolutionary writings of Frantz Fanon, James Baldwin, Amilcar Cabral, Toni Morrison and Ngugi wa Thiong’o (Contrary to popular belief, Ngugi’s books were not banned in Kenya even though the writer was forced into exile).

DICTATORSHIPS

Nor were we unaware of what was going on in the country.

But the only way we could cope with the situation was to pretend that everything was the way it should be, that Kenya under an authoritarian Daniel arap Moi was still better than the neighbouring dictatorships such as Somalia and Uganda.
We congratulated ourselves for not descending into anarchy or blood-curdling genocide.

We were, as “Baba na Mama ” Moi often told us, an island of peace in the midst of instability in the region.

SUPRESSED TALENTS

When Moi’s ruling Kanu party was finally removed in the 2002 General Election, many of us discovered our long-suppressed talents.
Some of us became writers, others ventured into the public service.

Then the parties stopped; they were no longer necessary to kill the stifling silence.

But for some reason my desire to have parties because it is the only way I can cope with a dystopian world has resurfaced.
However, things are not the way they were under President Moi.

EXPENSIVE

For one, the high cost of living has made parties prohibitively expensive; only the rich can afford them.

Two, Kenyan society has become so polarised that friendships have floundered and levels of mistrust among the people have escalated.
Conversations have become stilted and guarded; tribe-based politics has turned friend against friend, neighbour against neighbour.

I lost a lot of friends after the 2013 elections. It’s not like we had flaming rows or anything.
We just stopped talking. And when we did talk, the conversations veered towards the mundane or the frivolous.

THINK TOO MUCH

Now I have a handful of friends who do not judge me when I rant about the state of the nation and who understand that the madness that has taken root once again is a familiar one — we lived it under Moi.

Some people have told me that I think too much, that if I took up a hobby or had faith in God, I would be a happier, more contented person.

I would like to believe this. But I also know that hobbies and religion, like having parties, are a form of escapism — they numb the pain that comes with awareness.

rasna.warah@gmail.com

Daily Nation....

 

[Al-Watan]

Halafu Al-Watan akisema haamini Mungu wengine mnashangaa.

 

[Iconoclastes]

Halafu Al-Watan akisema haamini Mungu wengine mnashangaa.

Er? Unaamanisha hauamini "kuwepo" kwa Mungu?

 

[Al-Watan]

Er? Unaamanisha hauamini "kuwepo" kwa Mungu?

Kwa sababu nzuri sana za kimantiki.

Kama muandishi alivyoandika hapo juu, kuamini kuwepo Mungu ni escapism tu.

 

[Iconoclastes]

Kwa sababu nzuri sana za kimantiki.

Kama muandishi alivyoandika hapo juu, kuamini kuwepo Mungu ni escapism tu.

I am a cynic too. I dont care much about religion.

 

[Al-Watan]

I am a cynic too. I dont care much about religion.

There is a case for cynicism. One has to be very intelligent to be a cynic.

But even if one isn't a cynic - I help people with no overly apparent motive way too much to believe in cynicism, especially because I am humble enough to consider myself nit so special in any pronounced ways- so, even if one isn't a cynic, being a realist and following the facts blow huge holes in the God theory (God as an omnipotent, omniscient, omni benevolent being).

And while I may sound as over fixated on the question of God -the piece talks a lot about social constructs and issues that to the naked eye may need not be connected to God that much- I like the conclusion that deem religion as escapism. I would go further ans say God as described above is escapism. To go back to my point, why pick God and religion out if the piece while the matter was only marginally mentioned, I put a lot if stock in epistemology.

A person who believes in God has a fundamental problem in that everything else is predicated in a lie.

So if you believe in God and there is a shortage of rain in your country over the last few years, you are more prone to pray to God to make it rain than investigate environmental causes by facts.

That is a huge problem. That is the difference between scientific development and religious escapism.

There was a time when miners in Arusha were buried alive because if poor infrastructure and quality control. The then Tanzanian president, Kikwete, went over there to console. All he said was "This is Gods work. God's work has no fault". It was utterly insulting that he did nit talk about infrastructure, quality control, disaster preparedness and recovery etc.

If I was asked what is the single thing that makes African societies so poor despite having abundant resources, I will say the belief in God.

Most of these other problems stem from that belief.

Bad governance is nothing but tolerance of bad authority, which in turn is belief in a top down system, there us someone above who know more than I do and therefore I should not question him. A version of belief in God.

People who believe in God are more easily manipulated than people who do nit believe in God. That is why rulers have used the God card. From ancient Mesopotamia to ancient Egypt, China, Greece, Rome, France, UK down to Donald Trump and Magufuli.

I simply do not understand why more people do not see the problem of evil contradicting the existence if an omnipotent, omniscient and omni benevolent Godhead as enough evidence if that God not existing.

It is as clear as day, if you put a little thought to it.

Now, do people want to put thought into it?

Do they even have the time?

Do most people have the education?

Even those with the education, do they have the intellectual honesty to transcend their cognitive dissonance?

Sometimes people have believed in this God so much, telling them he doesn't exist is like telling a 50 year old man that your daddy, the one who raised you and schooled you to university and everything, is not your biological father by DNA evidence.

That man may question DNA tests even if he knows they are 99.99% accurate.

Just so his world, built upon believing his father us a biological one, does not tumble down.

 

[KeMzalendo]

There is a case for cynicism. One has to be very intelligent to be a cynic.

But even if one isn't a cynic - I help people with no overly apparent motive way too much to believe in cynicism, especially because I am humble enough to consider myself nit so special in any pronounced ways- so, even if one isn't a cynic, being a realist and following the facts blow huge holes in the God theory (God as an omnipotent, omniscient, omni benevolent being).

And while I may sound as over fixated on the question of God -the piece talks a lot about social constructs and issues that to the naked eye may need not be connected to God that much- I like the conclusion that deem religion as escapism. I would go further ans say God as described above is escapism. To go back to my point, why pick God and religion out if the piece while the matter was only marginally mentioned, I put a lot if stock in epistemology.

A person who believes in God has a fundamental problem in that everything else is predicated in a lie.

So if you believe in God and there is a shortage of rain in your country over the last few years, you are more prone to pray to God to make it rain than investigate environmental causes by facts.

That is a huge problem. That is the difference between scientific development and religious escapism.

There was a time when miners in Arusha were buried alive because if poor infrastructure and quality control. The then Tanzanian president, Kikwete, went over there to console. All he said was "This is Gods work. God's work has no fault". It was utterly insulting that he did nit talk about infrastructure, quality control, disaster preparedness and recovery etc.

If I was asked what is the single thing that makes African societies so poor despite having abundant resources, I will say the belief in God.

Most of these other problems stem from that belief.

Bad governance is nothing but tolerance of bad authority, which in turn is belief in a top down system, there us someone above who know more than I do and therefore I should not question him. A version of belief in God.

People who believe in God are more easily manipulated than people who do nit believe in God. That is why rulers have used the God card. From ancient Mesopotamia to ancient Egypt, China, Greece, Rome, France, UK down to Donald Trump and Magufuli.

I simply do not understand why more people do not see the problem of evil contradicting the existence if an omnipotent, omniscient and omni benevolent Godhead as enough evidence if that God not existing.

It is as clear as day, if you put a little thought to it.

Now, do people want to put thought into it?

Do they even have the time?

Do most people have the education?

Even those with the education, do they have the intellectual honesty to transcend their cognitive dissonance?

Sometimes people have believed in this God so much, telling them he doesn't exist is like telling a 50 year old man that your daddy, the one who raised you and schooled you to university and everything, is not your biological father by DNA evidence.

That man may question DNA tests even if he knows they are 99.99% accurate.

Just so his world, built upon believing his father us a biological one, does not tumble down.

I consider myself learned. I have researched and read countless books insearch of truth.
My conclusion, God exists. Take for example your formation, Al watan. Out of a probable 23million sperm that could have formed anybody, only you occurred. What's the probability; 1/23m. Now cascade that to the formation of your hand or foot. Such crazy probability. And guess what you came our perfect. Is that a game of chance?
A read into history, down the path of history, roman empire, Greek empire etc. While the rulers even called themselves god. None lives to date. This if man is mortal, then there has to be an immortal being.
Denying such existence only shows how shallow one can be.
Such denial only means our existence is by chance, that by chance the earth came to be just about the right distance from the sun, the right amount of oxygen, nitrogen and co2 and by chance organic groups could form, by chance nitrogen dominated protein that makes tissue would form. That must be some really crazy shit kind of chance.

 

[KeMzalendo]

And I wonder why by chance, we don't have another specie in another planet that operates using other elements of that planet.

 

[Al-Watan]

I consider myself learned. I have researched and read countless books insearch of truth.

A learned person must know there is always more to learn.So let's see if we can learn some more together here.

My conclusion, God exists.

A learned person does not conclude so fast. All conclusions should be qualified with frameworks, caveats, margins of error, known unknowns, unknown unknowns, et cetera, et cetera.

Take for example your formation, Al watan. Out of a probable 23million sperm that could have formed anybody, only you occurred.

I am not sure how do you arrive at such a low number. I feel like you are belittling me and you do not know your subject. If you are going by sperm count, my father could have doubled the population of India overnight. Please do not belittle me.

But that does not show an all knowing, all loving and all capable God head exist.

Why be so inefficient? Why be so wasteful? Where are all those hundred of millions of my unborn siblings? Where did God take them if God exists at all?

The fact that the reproduction process is so wasteful does not prove God exists. It proves God does not exist.

If an all knowing, all capable and all loving God exists, he wouldn't be so callously wasteful.

What's the probability; 1/23m. Now cascade that to the formation of your hand or foot. Such crazy probability. And guess what you came our perfect. Is that a game of chance?

Why would an all knowing, all capable and all loving God need probability?

Why not make one certain shot? Was God afraid he would miss? How could he miss if he was all that?

A read into history, down the path of history, roman empire, Greek empire etc. While the rulers even called themselves god. None lives to date. This if man is mortal, then there has to be an immortal being.

Death does not prove an all loving, all capable and all knowing God exists.

Death proves the opposite. That he does not exist.

Ha d he existed, there would be no death. Why would there be?

Why would an all knowing, all loving and all capable being create a universe in which death if possible if at all it could be avoided.

I mean separating people from their loving families alone would be enough of a reason to abolish death.

Why do you think we have doctors for?

Is your God mean? Or just incapable of stopping death?

Either way, the idea of an omnipotent, omniscient and omni benevolent Godhead is contradicted severely.

Denying such existence only shows how shallow one can be.

Can you prove God exist? Can you prove why my existence must only come from the existence of God?

Have you read Anselm? Are you denying complexity can come from simplicity?

If complexity must come from a designer, do you understand that this is also denying that your God exists?

Such denial only means our existence is by chance, that by chance the earth came to be just about the right distance from the sun, the right amount of oxygen, nitrogen and co2 and by chance organic groups could form, by chance nitrogen dominated protein that makes tissue would form. That must be some really crazy shit kind of chance.

Why must it be by chance and not some unknown inevitability ingrained in the physical laws of the multiverse?

 

[Al-Watan]

And I wonder why by chance, we don't have another specie in another planet that operates using other elements of that planet.

How do you know that you don't?

Have you ever heard of SETI? Do you know its history and limitations?

Do you realize that there are planets in this universe that you cannot communicate with because they are beyond the reach of two way communication based on electromagnetic waves?

And that there will be a time, through the expansion of the universe, that the only planets you will be able to communicate with will be in the Milky Way Galaxy?

And that further on, even the Milky Way Galaxy in its entirety will be beyond reach?

Do you realize that The Milky Way Galaxy is 30,000 by 100,000 light years?

Do you know what does that mean for communication?

That if you catch a planet on the outer edge of the Milky way Galaxy, if you use electromagnetic waves to communicate, it could easily take you 160,000 years to say "hello" and get a "hello" back?

And that by the time you get that "hello" back, after 160,000 years, it will be meaningless?

Do you realize that our common calendar is only 2017 years old?

That if we want to make this our yardstick, 160,000 years is 80 times since Jesus was supposedly born?

Do you understand that I am talking about just one galaxy in about 2 trillion in the observable universe?

Do you know that that is just the observable universe? Do you understand that there is a part of the universe that is forever not accessible?

Do you understand each of those 2 trillion galaxies is capable of having hundreds of millions of star systems?

Do you understand the expansion of the universe?

Inawezekana kuna vitu bilioni kumi vilivyo tofauti na maisha kama maisha yalivyo tofauti na kifo, kwa nini unajifunga kwenye maisha tu?

 

[Iconoclastes]

There is a case for cynicism. One has to be very intelligent to be a cynic.

But even if one isn't a cynic - I help people with no overly apparent motive way too much to believe in cynicism, especially because I am humble enough to consider myself nit so special in any pronounced ways- so, even if one isn't a cynic, being a realist and following the facts blow huge holes in the God theory (God as an omnipotent, omniscient, omni benevolent being).

And while I may sound as over fixated on the question of God -the piece talks a lot about social constructs and issues that to the naked eye may need not be connected to God that much- I like the conclusion that deem religion as escapism. I would go further ans say God as described above is escapism. To go back to my point, why pick God and religion out if the piece while the matter was only marginally mentioned, I put a lot if stock in epistemology.

A person who believes in God has a fundamental problem in that everything else is predicated in a lie.

So if you believe in God and there is a shortage of rain in your country over the last few years, you are more prone to pray to God to make it rain than investigate environmental causes by facts.

That is a huge problem. That is the difference between scientific development and religious escapism.

There was a time when miners in Arusha were buried alive because if poor infrastructure and quality control. The then Tanzanian president, Kikwete, went over there to console. All he said was "This is Gods work. God's work has no fault". It was utterly insulting that he did nit talk about infrastructure, quality control, disaster preparedness and recovery etc.

If I was asked what is the single thing that makes African societies so poor despite having abundant resources, I will say the belief in God.

Most of these other problems stem from that belief.

Bad governance is nothing but tolerance of bad authority, which in turn is belief in a top down system, there us someone above who know more than I do and therefore I should not question him. A version of belief in God.

People who believe in God are more easily manipulated than people who do nit believe in God. That is why rulers have used the God card. From ancient Mesopotamia to ancient Egypt, China, Greece, Rome, France, UK down to Donald Trump and Magufuli.

I simply do not understand why more people do not see the problem of evil contradicting the existence if an omnipotent, omniscient and omni benevolent Godhead as enough evidence if that God not existing.

It is as clear as day, if you put a little thought to it.

Now, do people want to put thought into it?

Do they even have the time?

Do most people have the education?

Even those with the education, do they have the intellectual honesty to transcend their cognitive dissonance?

Sometimes people have believed in this God so much, telling them he doesn't exist is like telling a 50 year old man that your daddy, the one who raised you and schooled you to university and everything, is not your biological father by DNA evidence.

That man may question DNA tests even if he knows they are 99.99% accurate.

Just so his world, built upon believing his father us a biological one, does not tumble down.

I always shy away from engaging in these discussions on religion openly for fear of offending peoples's sensibilities, for my views are rather iconoclastic.
I fear being ostracized by my society for criticizing their religion; its teachings and practices. Here, if u criticize christianity, then u are deemed to be the follower of the devil....who doesnt even exist.
But under the guise of this forum, I should be safe and free to express my thots on religion freely.

I am cynical about the idea of the existence of a transcedent almighty being, responsible for for the existence of everything there is.

I however do not write off this notion as an absolute poppy- cock. Perhaps this super- intelligent entity does exist, but is he exactly what he is being portrayed as by the religions- I am referring to the three monotheistic religious institutions.

I have dozens of reasons to reject the teachings of these religions, and in the God they believe in.

 

[KeMzalendo]

Is the difference between humans and animals only their sizes of brain? If then humans are superior to animals, doesn't there present a case of hierarchy beyond humans.
Yes indeed, there are very many galaxies. But one thing we know for sure, only earth is habitable within the solar system out of so many planets. Was that by mistake. Never. Was it by chance, No. Such chance of occurrence would be too slim; infinitesimal.
Only a supreme being would create a human and place him in a conducive environment.

 

[KeMzalendo]

Those who profess atheism want us to believe in the absence of a spiritual realm. Not visible to our naked eyes.
Does that negate existence of good and bad spirits, it doesn't. Is there proof of the same. True. Try and visit a wizard (those of TZ). He will tell you everything about you and your family.
So, do such sorceres and wizards deny the existence of spiritual entity not visible to naked eye and instead tap into some science to give you such observations?
It is unbelievable for an African whose recent ancestors would appease spirits to advocate atheism just because they are learned.
History is littered with atheist who eventually confessed the existence of God.
In Kenya, atheism is the excuse to engage in gay life. It comforts the soul. The atheist is the same guy whose parents would pray for him to succeed in life and after gaining some little success, turns around to say, there is no God. Running away from the truth doesn't negate the truth.

 

[Al-Watan]

I always shy away from engaging in these discussions on religion openly for fear of offending peoples's sensibilities, for my views are rather iconoclastic.

You have a noble reason and a generous dispensation in your rationale, I will give you that from the outset.

Having said that, just as we must guard ourselves against our neighbours sensibilities, we must also guard ourselves against pandering and patronizing another human being as if he were a mere tadpole. Although it must be said that some of our fellows make me question how far removed are they from a tadpole.

I do not want to risk elevating myself so much that I would consider a fellow netizen a weakling, especially one who can fluently converse in English and therefore, probably is exposed to so much that is out here already.

I refrain from starting a conversation that might be construed as encroaching on another's religiosity.I respect freedom of religion so much for that to happen.

But the moment a topic that encroaches on my irreligious ways hits my eyes, I have all the freedom in the world to express my views. I did not start the conversation, JF is a public square.Once a topic is on JF, as far as I am concerned, I have been asked to opine and express myself.

I fear being ostracized by my society for criticizing their religion; its teachings and practices. Here, if u criticize christianity, then u are deemed to be the follower of the devil....who doesnt even exist.

I totally understand you. To be perfectly honest, I calibrate my expression according to the level of vulnerability. In person I would be more guarded for all the good reasons you mentioned.

Here, with the anonimity of the internet aliases. I feel more empowered.

But under the guise of this forum, I should be safe and free to express my thots on religion freely.

Exactly my sentiments. There are many others who think exactly like you but are just bound by societal norms. Once people start to speak up, more will feel free.

I am cynical about the idea of the existence of a transcedent almighty being, responsible for for the existence of everything there is.

I think for a critical mind that thinks logically this Godhead is already destroyed, the contradiction of evil in the world just being one contradicting point. Glaringly.

I however do not write off this notion as an absolute poppy- cock. Perhaps this super- intelligent entity does exist, but is he exactly what he is being portrayed as by the religious institutions- I am referring to the three monotheistic religious institutions.

The folly of the God of the books is in his absolutism, absolute knowledge, absolute love, absolute capability. Once you remove that, you can arguably make equivocation and a case for the existence of an all powerful, all knowing but not exactly all loving super intelligent being. Or an all loving, all powerful but not all capable, or any other variation that is not all that.

I have asked above, how do we know that there are not ten billion strange things out there, as starnage as or even stranger as life is to death?

I have not been answered.

The most important thing is to investigate and follow knowledge. Otherwise, the simple answer is anything is possible.

I have dozens of reasons to reject the teachings of these religions, and in the God they believe in.

I liken this searching to a convergence towards truth, by elimination, even if we do not know what the truth is, we should be able to discard some old theories that do not stand the test of logical consistency.

The God idea is one such theory.

Even if you do not know the square root of two exactly, if you have a convergence theory that the square root of two must be smaller than two, if someone comes and tell you the square root of two is ten, you have reason to reject that answer as bunkum. It does not satisfy the logical consistency of number theory.

 

[Iconoclastes]

I consider myself learned. I have researched and read countless books insearch of truth.
My conclusion, God exists. Take for example your formation, Al watan. Out of a probable 23million sperm that could have formed anybody, only you occurred. What's the probability; 1/23m. Now cascade that to the formation of your hand or foot. Such crazy probability. And guess what you came our perfect. Is that a game of chance?
A read into history, down the path of history, roman empire, Greek empire etc. While the rulers even called themselves god. None lives to date. This if man is mortal, then there has to be an immortal being.
Denying such existence only shows how shallow one can be.
Such denial only means our existence is by chance, that by chance the earth came to be just about the right distance from the sun, the right amount of oxygen, nitrogen and co2 and by chance organic groups could form, by chance nitrogen dominated protein that makes tissue would form. That must be some really crazy shit kind of chance.

That is exactly how the beliefs in God and religion emerged. Man was awed by everything he saw around him, and couldnt understand how they all came into being. The trees, the mountainas the stars and the moon and the sun, all the living things, the phenomena they couldnt understand their cause.....and they concluded: somebody really intelligent and powerful must have brought all these things into existence and is responsible for all these happenings.

Man created religion long ago when life was very harsh in order to provide him with hope. By propitiating to these gods they created, they hoped that they were guaranteed safe escape from life's numerous adversities.

But religion has been a factor to the numerous wars fought by man over the millenia, oppression, diseases, poverty and unhappiness. Just compare the quality of life today of the least religious countries, like europe and north america and the highly religious places like africa, south america or asia.

Religion, i also believe hampers human development due to the restrictions imposed on certain actions and thoughts. I personally think the world would be a better place without religin. As long as there are rules in place that guide peoples behavior and conducts, as long as they'd agree to a mutual respect and understanding, i dont see why religion should be necessary. Just my two cent opinion.

 

[Al-Watan]

That is exactly how the beliefs in God and religion emerged. Man was awed by everything he saw around him, and couldnt understand how they all came into being. The trees, the mountainas the stars and the moon and the sun, all the living things, the phenomena they couldnt understand their cause.....and they concluded: somebody really intelligent and powerful must have brought all these things into existence and is responsible for all these happenings.

Man created religion long ago when life was very harsh in order to provide him with hope. By propitiating to these gods they created, they hoped that they were guaranteed safe escape from life's numerous adversities.

But religion has been a factor to the numerous wars fought by man over the millenia, oppression, diseases, poverty and unhappiness. Just compare the quality of life today of the least religious countries, like europe and north america and the highly religious places like africa, south america or asia.

Religion, i also believe hampers human development due to the restrictions imposed on certain actions and thoughts. I personally think the world would be a better place without religin. As long as there are rules in place that guide peoples behavior and conducts, as long as they'd agree to a mutual respect and understanding, i dont see why religion should be necessary. Just my two cent opinion.

Yuval Noah Harari eloquently talks about how this God and religion is manufactured reality.

If interested and you haven't read his books, plese see his books. I enjoyed both immensely.

• Homo Deus: A Brief History of Tomorrow (2016), ISBN 978-1910701881
• Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind (London: Harvill Secker, 2014) ISBN 978-006-231-609-7

God is as real as a 100 US $ note is worth things that are bought with it, out of convention.

This is an agreed "manufatured reality" that to be fair, perhaps served a great purpose in the dark ages - professor Harari explains this point vastly, but by now, we should be over the need for such a theory.

CC halloperidon Mk54

 

[Al-Watan]

Those who profess atheism want us to believe in the absence of a spiritual realm. Not visible to our naked eyes.
Does that negate existence of good and bad spirits, it doesn't. Is there proof of the same. True. Try and visit a wizard (those of TZ). He will tell you everything about you and your family.
So, do such sorceres and wizards deny the existence of spiritual entity not visible to naked eye and instead tap into some science to give you such observations?
It is unbelievable for an African whose recent ancestors would appease spirits to advocate atheism just because they are learned.
History is littered with atheist who eventually confessed the existence of God.
In Kenya, atheism is the excuse to engage in gay life. It comforts the soul. The atheist is the same guy whose parents would pray for him to succeed in life and after gaining some little success, turns around to say, there is no God. Running away from the truth doesn't negate the truth.

Do you really believe in wizardry? Really?

How do you know that what you think is wizardry today won't be perfectly explained by natural laws tomorrow?

Our ancestors believed the whites were wizards and had some godly powers because they had little boxes that talked and they could predict solar eclipses.

That stuff seemed magical back then.

But it is all prefectly explainable within the natural laws. One can record a voice through electromagnetic means and play it back.

One can study the movements of the sun and planets and predicts eclipses hundred of years in advance.

How do you know that, in believing witchcraft you are not succumbing to psychological tricks or perfectly natural phenomena that has not been explained yet?

Moreover, being a person who always wants to consider the possibility that I could be wrong in my assessment, I will give you some ground.

Suppose all this business about witchcraft is real, how does it prove God exist and it is not coming from any other source other than God?

As for atheism and being gay, there are people in the Catholic church who are gay, so that is neither here nor there.

Moreover, as long as one is of age and is engaging in his private business with consent of his partners, why should I care whether they are gay or straight?

I am straight, they are gay. As long as they don't force me to be gay, why should I care that they are gay?