[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.

[SeekAndFind]

I'm happy to have my group write the rules, as I consider them to be better for people to live under.

Notice you are appealing to personal preference again, not to what is INTRINSICALLY good or bad.

Let's say that Hitler won the second world war, would gassing Jews be considered evil ? If it is, on what ultimate basis do we ground our saying it is ? It becomes his personal preference against yours. There is nothing evil in what Hitler did then, it all becomes a matter of personal preference. As long as you agree that this is so ( if Dawkins is correct ), then I have no further arguments with you. You would then be logically consistent.