[SeekAndFind]

Perhaps. But that doesn't mean others won't try to stop him, seeing as the rest of us don't want to die.

Yes, and as I said before ( see above ), if Dawkin's worldview is correct, Hitler isn't really evil, just different. Your using the words -- stop him -- says it all -- the group with the stronger weapons win, and if whoever wins gets to establish what is right or wrong.

You can try to stop the next Hitler but he can also stop you and if (God ( who doesn't exist) forbid ) he wins, killing Jews and gays would be the norm. Not evil mind you, just the norm. In fact, not persecuting Jews would then be evil.

That HAS to be the conclusion if Dawkin's worldview is correct.

[Blackacre]

Yes, and as I said before ( see above ), if Dawkin's worldview is correct, Hitler isn't really evil, just different.

Dawkins is entitled to his opinion, but that's just academic navel-gazing. Rational people, religious or not, don't sit around discussing whether people like Hitler are "really" evil, they use whatever means they can to protect themselves from people like him.

Your using the words -- stop him -- says it all -- the group with the stronger weapons win, and if whoever wins gets to establish what is right or wrong.

Historically, that's true. I just want my group to have the stronger weapons, rather than people like Hitler or Saddam Hussein. I'm happy to have my group write the rules, as I consider them to be better for people to live under.