Why don't atheists bring up Rwanda during debates?
Offline Dimwit theists like Dinesh D'Souza repeatedly speak of genocide under "atheist" regimes of Mao, Pol Pot and Stalin. Yet I have not heard a single prominent atheist (eg. Hitchens, Harris, Dawkins, etc..) bring up the genocide that took place in Rwanda which IMO is a compelling example arguing against the idea that atheism leads to mass extermination. Over 90% of the inhabitants of Rwanda are Christian and their devotion to JC did not stop the Hutu hordes from killing Tutsis with machetes. In fact, there are a number of Catholic Hutus who are convicted of crimes against humanity. Is the bible therefore directly responsible? No, but the "benevolent" Christian morality did not prevent the slaughter. Similarly, the "benevolence" of Marx did not prevent the kiling fields. None of the atheists have pointed out in their debates that evolution resulted in our often brutal tribal instincts and humans are prone to wreak havoc on fellow humans when the constraints of democracy and civil liberties are abandoned. The disbelief in the supernatural does not lead to prejudice, violence and genocide. Those are tendencies which are already hardwired to a certain degree and are expressed in societies wherein the masses fanatically adhere to a rigid pervasive ideology.
- Login to post comments
Probably because the christians when then go, 'oh well,those are catholics, not real christians.'
It's probably also hard for first worlder's to really think of countries like Rwanda as serious examples of anything. Still, interesting point I'll keep in mind.
Psalm 14:1 "the fool hath said in his heart there is a God"-From a 1763 misprinted edition of the bible
Argument from Sadism: Theist presents argument in a wall of text with no punctuation and wrong spelling. Atheist cannot read and is forced to concede.
The main reason I don't bring it up is that I don't like using the "you too" argument. The thing is, Christians don't usually understand that Mao, et al, were not doing anything because of or in the name of atheism. If I say something about Rwanda, the standard Christian response is, "Ok, so you've proved that people are evil. So what?"
Theism fails on its own merits without having to invoke the genocide argument, which most people dismiss anyway.
For what it's worth, I think Harris has used Rwanda as an example, but I can't remember where.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Humans are instinctively predators religion or no-religion. Our evolutionary past tells us we are often war mongering, whore mongering creatures, rapists, thieves and murderers that will do anything to survive and destroy any perceived threat.
We need to be honest about our species past and overcome these instincts with rational thinking and social cooperation.
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen
Hitchens devotes the better part of a chapter to the Rwandan genocide in God is not Great; the argument is more carefully constructed than a simple "look at the evil some Christians do". Rather, he points out that religion is as useful for reinforcing tribal hatred as it is for leading people to altruistic acts.
"The whole conception of God is a conception derived from ancient Oriental despotisms. It is a conception quite unworthy of free men."
--Bertrand Russell