In 1994, the country of Rwanda experienced one of the world's greatest tragedies since the Holocaust. Rwanda became infamous for one of the fastest and most systematic genocides in human history; all after the world as a whole (through the UN) had vowed to stop such bloodshed from ever happening again. Following the fiery death of a president, the entire country was sent into chaos, and in the course of only 100 days, 800,000 people were killed. Of these, nearly all were from one of three "ethnic  groups native to Rwanda; the Tutsi. In total, roughly 80 percent of the total Tutsi population was eradicated in the genocide, along with a small number of the majority Hutu racial group that sympathized with those being slaughtered. How can such an organized, systematic mass murder be explained? The answer is not a simple one, and many different historical and political factors actually led to Rwanda's eventual degeneration into being "clinically dead as a nation." [1] The base cause of this tragedy was a long-running competition between the Tutsi (who were in power for centuries), and the majority Hutu peoples, who came to power in the rebellion of 1959 -1962. But how and why did this competition even start? Its origins are complicated by issues going back as far as the German colonization of the region in 1894, which served to cause a major schism throughout the country. The aftermath of this schism went on to be compounded by numerous future events which brought the entire population to the breaking point not only once, but twice in the past 60 years. Due to the genocide's roots in political history, it is explainable through human, finite reasons such as the common atheist viewpoints regarding the Problem of Good. In fact, some atheist moral theories do appear in the framework of Rwanda's colonial and post-colonial historical events, though the vast majority of them seem to have questionable validity at best. By looking at the past conflict and eventual genocide in Rwanda, we may create a case study of the feasibility of the atheist moral beliefs presented in the book Evil: A Guide for the Perplexed [2] which gives us insight into the applicability of each in an absolute, extreme situation; one which was an intensely and indisputably evil era in recent history. Meister details five different atheist theories regarding how one can define good and evil within the context of non-belief in an all-good God with moral law. These varied moral claims are: moral relativism, Nietzschean ethics, Dawkin's evolutionary standpoint, morality existing as an illusion in a deterministic world, and utilitarianism. [2] Of these, only the ideas of cultural moral relativism and Nietzsche's "might makes right  mentality are readily apparent. In fact, relativism and Nietzschean ideals seem to form a symbiotic relationship in the tragedy; each seems to strengthen the other to form the slow-moving moral and emotional death of Rwanda. This, unfortunately, isn't true for the other listed theories, and all other atheist moral claims not only seem nonsensical when applied to the Rwandan Genocide, but also only serve to insult the victims of the tragedy, or, even worse, to uphold that the act of genocide could have been morally correct. Because of this, the two most applicable ideologies (Nietzsche's, as well as cultural moral relativism) must be explored together so that their interrelations may be distinguished and their multiple occurrences explained. Before any colonists arrived in what would eventually become Rwanda, Hutus and Tutsis coexisted peacefully. In fact, for centuries they were indistinguishable from one another. Both groups adopted the Bantu language, and both shared a common culture. Though the Tutsis originally came from Ethiopia and the Hutus hailed from the Congo Basin, any differences were superficial and there was significant intermarriage between the two. In fact, soon after meeting, the definitions of the words "Hutu  and "Tutsi  changed; the cattle herders of Rwanda came to be called "Tutsi," while everyone else was called "Hutu." Because of this, a person could easily change back and forth either through marriage or the acquisition of cattle. [3, 4, 5]One historian, Josias Semujanga, has useful insight into the culture of Rwanda: For Rwanda, the concept of ethnic group cannot be applied to the Hutu, Tutsi, and Twa [Hunter-Gatherer Group, 1% of total population] categories from the scientific point of view, because these categories do not refer to the concept of race, which is presupposed by its definition, and the principle of endogamy does not apply among the three. One is Hutu, Tutsi, or Twa through the patrilineal system that pertains to the order of culture, not to the order of nature (the somatic). [4] This remained true for over 400 years, until the colonization of Rwanda in 1894 by Germany. When German colonists first established contact with the king of Rwanda in the 1890's (and later signe