Atheists In Kenya Society

Do you have
some Questions?

Here, we provide answers to some of the most frequently asked questions about the Atheists In Kenya Society.

About the Atheists In Kenya Society

The Atheists In Kenya Society is an atheist organization, registered under the Societies Act (Cap 108) in Kenya. We were legally registered on February 17th, 2016. We are the first atheist society to be registered in the country. 

Membership is open to Kenyan Citizens above the age of 18 years. You must carefully read, understand and consent to our mission and objectives in order to become a member.  Membership enables you to attend meetings and functions and participate in other society activities. Registered members are eligible for sponsorship.

Members have full voting rights at the Annual General Meeting (AGM).

Register here

  • Personalized invitations to our events and events hosted by our partners across the world.
  • Opportunities to support campaigns for secular and progressive values.
  • Legal representation for discrimination based on belief.
  • Training opportunities.
  • Internship and volunteer  opportunities.
  • Access to legal advice on cremation.
  • Participation in humanist ceremonies.

You will also receive:

  • A copy of the AIK’s Constitution, Statement of Values and Principles and links to current policies by email.
  • Access to AIK’s members’ site.
  • The right to notice of, and attendance at, general meetings of AIK.
  • The right to vote at members’ meetings and in elections for the Executive Committee

Our Values are built on four pillars, which are:

 

  • Logic and Critical Thinking
  • Compassion
  • Knowledge
  • Freedom

The Atheists In Kenya Society was registered in February 17th, 2016.

No.

 

The Society’s Act (Cap 108) requires that every society have an Executive Committee that is voted in by the members during an AGM.

 

The current Executive Committee is made up of the following members:

 

  • Chairperson – Harrison Mumia
  • Vice Chairperson – Moureen Temba
  • Secretary – Mary Wangui
  • Assistant Secretary – Rebecca Sarange
  • Treasurer – Samson Mbavu

 

Visit our donations page here

 

You can also send a good, old-fashioned check to:

 

Atheists In Kenya Society
36705 – 00200, Nairobi, Kenya

AIK receives support from members, partners, and individuals.

Your donations will help us to campaign on humanist issues, lobby for secular and humanist values in Kenya and build and support the atheist movement in Kenya.

There are many ways volunteers can get involved in the work of the Atheists In Kenya Society. See our Volunteer Page to learn about existing opportunities for interested volunteers.

About atheism

Morality comes from us – we make it.

The foundation starts with a few biological sources, such as the basic survival instinct, and behaviors of social species. After that, human philosophy, and assessment of harm versus benefit, establish the what we call morality. By “harm”, we mean any kind of physical, emotional or personal violation, even if we’re talking about violating a person’s established rights.

Atheists use this “Secular” morality explicitly, which is basically a derived set of behaviors that allow multiple humans to cooperate in a society, and generally get along. The goals are to maximize benefit and happiness while minimizing harm and misery (which biology primes us to desire). Actions taken can be evaluated towards this goal as moral and immoral, respectively.

How do we know not to kill people? Societies break down fairly fast if people run around slaughtering each other. It doesn’t take long to figure out that this is a behavior that gets in the way of society – thus, it’s determined to be ‘bad’. It’s reality-based, not supernatural, or even authority-based.

It’s like a family trying to sit down at the dinner table to eat. The reason that it’s bad to chew with your mouth open isn’t because it was declared in some book, but because it disgusts the other members at the table, to the point that they’re less willing to eat dinner with you. Thus, chewing with one’s mouth open is deemed “wrong”.

Another analogy is the rules of the road (and by “rules of the road”, we’re not necessarily talking about strictly-enforced laws, but more a common agreement and understanding among drivers). Many people make use of the public roads to their advantage, but if we don’t have a common set of rules that helps facilitate convenience, while minimizing accidents/casualties, traffic turns into dog-eat-dog chaos. The rules exist because they objectively improve the situation, not merely because some “ultimate” book said so.

Each action can be assessed as to how much harm vs. benefit it generates. Thus, a rule set of morality can be derived from the patterns of human behavior.

If humans wish to survive, typically, we need to cooperatively live together. That’s a biological imperative programmed into us, driven by the evolution of a social species, and our basic survival instincts. We accomplish more as a whole, than as individuals. Without cooperation, society wouldn’t be able to specialize into experts like scientists, police and farmers. Instead, we’d all be mediocre at the same small sets of skills, individually trying to survive. In order to cooperatively operate as a group, we need to figure out how to not step on each others’ toes. Morality is the assessment as to what helps towards that goal, and what detracts from that goal.

No supernatural beings required.

The biggest struggle, when it comes to discussing morality, is defining what it is we’re talking about. What is the purpose of morality? What is it for? Is it just blindly following a set of rules? That’s obedience, not morality.

If the model of morality you’re using isn’t based on the impacts of actions in reality, it’s not relevant to reality.

The question is loaded. It’s assuming it’s a “who” (some kind of being), instead of a “what”.

While a bunch of ideas exist that have yet to be supported, let’s cut to the chase. We don’t know.

Just because we don’t know doesn’t mean there’s any credibility to asserting that a supreme being is responsible. When we say that we don’t know, it means we don’t know – nothing more, nothing less. We’re currently looking into it.

This counts for virtually every question of “Well, if there’s no God, then how do you explain ________?”

Humanity has a long history of investigating phenomenon (such as lightning) that were thought to be supernatural (thrown by Zeus), only to find they’re perfectly natural phenomenon (equalization of electrical charge between the upper atmosphere and the ground via electrostatic breakdown of the air).

Out of that huge list of scientific investigations, we as a species have never confirmed a supernatural claim.

No.

 

This question is a version of “Pascal’s Wager”.

 

The basis of this question is basically a risk-assessment plot. Given the possibilities and choices, what’s the best action one can take?

 

Unfortunately, this argument makes a plethora of assumptions that would make the decision process much more vague and ambiguous than this oversimplified argument presents.

 

This question assumes that the correct god is chosen (gods hate it when you worship the wrong god).

  • It assumes that the god doesn’t just let everyone in.
  • It assumes that the god doesn’t let the good people in, regardless of belief.
  • It assumes that everyone doesn’t automatically go to hell.
  • It assumes that the skeptical, intellectually honest people aren’t the ones specifically let into heaven.
  • It assumes that who gets into heaven isn’t random.
  • It’s assuming that you can fool the god, and he won’t detect that you’re using him as an insurance policy, and who becomes angry at you.


…and so on.

Additionally, it’s factually incorrect that not believing is neutral at best, and believing is neutral at worst.

 

Non-believers won’t have religious doctrine or dogma repressing their ability to enjoy life, such as enjoying their sexuality or dictating who one must marry, etc. (unless they’re being oppressed under Theocratic rule)


Non-believers are less likely to waste their lives waiting for an afterlife, because they don’t tend to believe in one. If there’s everlasting paradise waiting for us after we die, this life becomes little more than a waiting room, and there’s less pressure to make the best of this life as possible. If Heaven is a lie, then that time wasted waiting for it, or working towards going there, such as dutifully doing what you think God wants you to do (instead of living your life how you want).


Atheists won’t be brainwashed by religious dogma/indoctrination into thinking that they’re worthless scum, ruining relationships and raising the next generations with more of the same. For instance, religious homosexuals are more likely to be driven into being suicidal because their religious upbringing teaches that homosexuality is immoral/sinful. 


Atheists aren’t as likely to tithe 10% of their income (unless they’re closeted and still going to church) to support what is essentially an entertainment industry (Religion), where they’re supporting the career of someone who is being paid to stand at the front of the room and make false statements.
Out atheists aren’t going to be tricked into spending over five months of their lives sitting in pews (1 hour a week for 75 years).
The bottom line is that the best thing one can do is be intellectually honest, evidence driven, and skeptical. The best decisions are made that way in every other aspect of life.

 

If a god exists, and frowns upon a person for not just believing without evidence, then that’s not a god deserving of worship, anyway. We would consider this selection process as immoral.

 

 

The question, as stated, is an offshoot of Pascal’s Wager. More specifically, the question is assuming that the assessed risk is legitimate.

 

It would be like asking, “What if you are wrong about there not being a monster in your closet?”

 

Well, then I would get gobbled up by the monster in my closet.

 

Admitting that the consequences to being wrong would be bad, does not mean I should build an altar in front of my closet door, sacrifice animals to appease the monster, pay 10% of my income to have professional anti-closet-monster priests bless my room, and end all investigation into determining whether there in fact is a monster in my closet.

 

Instead, I may investigate the matter, and if no evidence supports the claim, not believe it. It would be silly to take steps to mitigate a supposed danger that, for all intents and purposes, is not demonstrably real. We do have better things to worry about.

 

… and that’s assuming the person can sufficiently make the case that it’s even bothering looking into. For every legitimate possibility, there’s a hundred thousand bullshit assertions. We atheists aren’t blessed with infinite time and energy to investigate every random whimsical claim a person invents.

 

Hell has no credibility.

 

People in our society do not fortify their houses, or take defensive actions, against Tyrannosaurus Rexes running around, because no evidence exists that indicates that this is a problem. And yet, we have far more evidence that Tyrannosaurus Rexes existed than an afterlife, let alone a bad afterlife.

 

Additionally, those who ask this question are usually ignoring other possibilities to be wrong about. For instance, frequently Christians will ask the question in regards about their god, without realizing that Muslims would be asking the same thing about the Muslim god.

For most atheists, no, of course not. The question is loaded (starts with one or more non-stated assumptions accepted as true).

 

This question assumes a dichotomy between purposeful design and accidental happenstance. The implication is that because an event is an accident, it’s not supposed to happen, otherwise. Questions like this are an attempt to make the atheist appear foolish for believing in something so improbable.

 

For instance, the idea is that if life is an “accident”, then it’s a fluke so beyond the chances of winning the lottery. Therefore, it must have been guided, because there’s no way it could have happened on its own.

 

A third possibility exists: predictable result.

 

That is to say, it’s neither an accident nor a intelligently guided process that water vapor turns into snow during the winter. It’s to be expected, given the starting conditions. In fact, this occurs with predictable regularity.

 

One can follow successive steps after the big bang until today:

 

Lots of hydrogen is floating around the universe, which begins to condense together and “ignite” into stars. This is predictable simple physics.

 

Stars, through nuclear fusion, begin to produce heavier elements. This is predictable nuclear physics.

 

The stars eventually nova as they run out of fusible material, spreading the heavier elements around (oxygen, carbon, iron, etc.) This is predictable physics.

 

The heavier elements condense into accretion discs, like the stars did, to form asteroids, planetoids and planets. This is predictable cosmology.
Etc.

 

Follow this chain of events, and you’ll eventually get to the spontaneous formation of amino acids (which some kinds have been reproduced in the Miller-Urey Experiments[1]), and on to proteins, protein bubbles, and beyond.

 

Obviously, some spots of the timeline aren’t well understood yet, however, the point is that no step along the way, is an “accident”. They’re predictable results given the starting conditions.

…meaning, it should happen. We don’t yet know how, exactly, how abiogenesis happened, but atheists and scientists tend to believe it’s likely a natural, predictable result like any of the other steps that we’ve investigated thus far.

 

Things like abiogenesis may turn out to be just as inevitable of a result, as snow falling in the winter.

Depending what type of atheist one is asking, this question may or may not even make sense.

If one is asking a strong atheist – one who positively believes/asserts that there definitely is no god – most atheists would be right there beside you, wondering the same thing. Though, it depends heavily on the god definition. Definitions that are too narrow/specific are easy to disprove.

In short, the authors of this FAQ believe strong atheism is not justified.

On the other hand, when asking a default/weak atheist the question, the question doesn’t make sense. The default/weak atheist position is “You haven’t supplied sufficient evidence to convince me that your claims are true.” (since the theist has the burden of proof).

… so you’d literally be asking the atheist what evidence he/she has that proves that “you haven’t convinced me” is true and accurate, since default atheism is not a position that no gods exist.

Asking such a question would be like asking “what temperature does the number 7 melt?” It’s technically a question, because it has a question-mark at the end, but the question itself is gibberish, when applied to numbers.

Before asking the atheist the question, you’d benefit from clarifying whether he/she is a strong or default atheist, and go from there. Asking this question can make you seem like someone who doesn’t understand the topic enough to even ask a coherent question.

Our mission is that every child graduates from our program healthy, educated, employed and empowered to break the cycle of poverty.

Our mission is that every child graduates from our program healthy, educated, employed and empowered to break the cycle of poverty.

Our mission is that every child graduates from our program healthy, educated, employed and empowered to break the cycle of poverty.

Our mission is that every child graduates from our program healthy, educated, employed and empowered to break the cycle of poverty.

Our mission is that every child graduates from our program healthy, educated, employed and empowered to break the cycle of poverty.

Our mission is that every child graduates from our program healthy, educated, employed and empowered to break the cycle of poverty.

Miscellaneous questions

Our mission is that every child graduates from our program healthy, educated, employed and empowered to break the cycle of poverty.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Ut elit tellus, luctus nec ullamcorper mattis, pulvinar dapibus leo.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Ut elit tellus, luctus nec ullamcorper mattis, pulvinar dapibus leo.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Ut elit tellus, luctus nec ullamcorper mattis, pulvinar dapibus leo.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Ut elit tellus, luctus nec ullamcorper mattis, pulvinar dapibus leo.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Ut elit tellus, luctus nec ullamcorper mattis, pulvinar dapibus leo.

Our mission is that every child graduates from our program healthy, educated, employed and empowered to break the cycle of poverty.

Our mission is that every child graduates from our program healthy, educated, employed and empowered to break the cycle of poverty.

Our mission is that every child graduates from our program healthy, educated, employed and empowered to break the cycle of poverty.

Our mission is that every child graduates from our program healthy, educated, employed and empowered to break the cycle of poverty.

Our mission is that every child graduates from our program healthy, educated, employed and empowered to break the cycle of poverty.

Our mission is that every child graduates from our program healthy, educated, employed and empowered to break the cycle of poverty.

Can’t find what you
are looking for?

Shopping cart close