Who is more evil, Dawkins or Hitler?

[Phier]

This is not as inane a question as it seems. (I do expect such as a reply though).

Hitler set a war in motion which killed and murdered millions of people, a great many of them good and noble.

Dawkins convinces people that atheism is the logical position.

From a religious standpoint who is the monster?

Hitler indirectly murdered millions, crushed nations, and enacted genocide but most of those people would be dead or near death now anyways. The 'greatest' generation is in their 80's and 90's, their time on earth is at an end and they will either be with the lord or cast out.

Dawkins on the other hand destroys souls. He condemns any who agree with him to an eternal hell. Whats 40 years of life vrs an eternity of damnation?

Should this not be the most horrific crime to the believer? Life is but a trial before eternal life. Losing ones life early is a blip, losing ones eternal life, is by definition forever.

I think its an interesting philosophical argument. Murder just can't be the worst crime one can commit from a religious context, life is ephemeral. Should not the atheists, men like myself, be the real enemy of mankind?

[S.L.I.G]

Hitlers worse...dawkins isnt really evil, hes just a douchebag. He thinks what he says is right, and its not as if he thinks his malicious and homicidal acts are right, like hitler lol. Anyways, I doubt dawkins is particularly influential either way.

[The Dude]

One of the more interesting questions on this forum, Phier Have some rep. I like how this question both exposes the hypocrisy of religion and then reinforces it by forcing the religious to bend the word of their faith in order to both be able to answer this without condemning themselves to extremism AND delude themselves they are still devout.

[Doctor]

Hitlers worse...dawkins isnt really evil, hes just a douchebag.

Heres the answer.

[conon394]

Simple - no matter what Dawkins exposes no matter how you feel about it remains an opinion he has no power to enforce anything ergo he pales vastly hugely totally in comparison to Hitler. No matter what you think a man who was personally and critically responsible for implementing one of the most sadistic and evil governments in human history and more less provoked the most destructive war in human history is profoundly more evil than any influential advocate of of any ideology that is more or less harmless in a western tradition --- silly comparison.

edit:

to expand...

Dawkins on the other hand destroys souls. He condemns any who agree with him to an eternal hell. Whats 40 years of life vrs an eternity of damnation?

He however has no power to make anyone make such a decision - that rests with the individual and depending on your view of faith that may or may no damn someone. The same can be said of all leaders of any faith that suggest their path is the only way to avoid damnation as well.

[conon394]

One of the more interesting questions on this forum, Phier Have some rep. I like how this question both exposes the hypocrisy of religion and then reinforces it by forcing the religious to bend the word of their faith in order to both be able to answer this without condemning themselves to extremism AND delude themselves they are still devout.

What????????????????????????????????? are you talking about.

[ket222]

Dawkins on the other hand destroys souls."

In fact, Hitler destroyed countless souls, primarily Germans. He brainwashed a nation and had them commit atrocities that led them on a highway to hell (metaphorical or not). Unlike stalin who was simply a dictator seeking power, Hitler has always seemed to me to be a spiritually malign force in the world.

He showed the world the face of pure evil--the fact that once he knew the war was lost he wanted the complete destruction of his beloved Germany shows that he at heart was a nihilist. To follow him was therefore to look into the face of the abyss, which is the very definition of anti-God and evil (Augustine-good is being, evil is nothing).

[Tankbuster]

Conon, I think you are missing the point that Phier was making. He's talking about how atheism (according to some religious people, at least) would set you on the path of eternal damnation.
Hitler certainly killed lots of people but (as the believer will tell you) the just ones amongst them will go to heaven anyway for an eternity of happiness.
Dawkins, on the other hand, effectively convinces people to not believe in the Holy Spirit and sends them to their downfall.

Thus it's not just that Dawkins would be a proponent of a belief that 'is more or less harmless in a western tradition', it's that according to certain religious ideas Dawkins' ideas are positively lethal.

Sam Harris had a similar example, where he pointed out that in a religious mindset, an atheist next door is far more dangerous than the child molester next door. The child molester can only cause finite grief and suffering but the atheist can tell your child something that will damn his soul for all eternity.

That's kinda the problem when you start with ideas like 'eternity of suffering'. The 60 million people that died because of Hitler in WWII certainly suffered a lot, but if Dawkins gets one person to go to hell and experience an eternity of suffering, Dawkins clearly is the bigger bogeyman.

To follow him was therefore to look into the face of the abyss, which is the very definition of anti-God and evil (Augustine-good is being, evil is nothing).

That's strange considering he was a believer though.

Welcome back, by the way.

[The Dude]

What????????????????????????????????? are you talking about.

Simple. Unbelievers go to hell, right? You must accept Jesus Christ as your saviour or embrace the five pillars of Islam or what have you, otherwise you're screwed. Alright, that's step one.

Step two is actually adhering to these things rather than just saying that you do.

Step three is then the challenge in answering questions such the one that Phier posed. Why is this a challenge? Because of the following:

If you answer according to the teachings of your religion you will be forced to conclude that Dawkins is a greater evil than Hitler. Afterall, this earthly existence is only temporary anyway and certain branches of Christianity and no doubt Islam aswell even believe that it's meant to be miserable and full of pain. So in a sense what Hitler did is highly in character for the realm in which he lives. But then again, he probably helped a bunch get to heaven faster aswell. Dawkins on the other hand is actively working to damn the souls of billions by trying to convince them to abandon their faith OR by trying to keep them from turning to faith to begin with.

Nasty business.

If you answer according to your heart however, the exact opposite answer is obvious. Hitler is more evil! Why, afterall, we all know that he was just an angry spiteful little man who for some reason decided to commence with the systematic eradication of everyone he didn't like very much. And we hate him for it, because how dare he. Dawkins hasn't really physically killed anyone at all, save for except the odd collateral damage where son-dear decides to abandon his faith, mother-dear loses her mind over the heresy of her son and father-dear comes home from work one day to find that mother-dear hung herself from the stairs while son-dear's out in Miami getting laid after having abandoned all his religious scruples.

So now the big question. Which answer to go with? Go with the former and you will quickly be labeled a religious extremist with a medieval mentality. Go with the latter and you religious hardliners will quickly condemn you as the curse that modern religion suffers from: half-arsed cherrypicking by wannabe-believers who are only interested in the parts of faith that suit them.

Of course most people really want to be neither and so they are forced to twist and turn and bend their perception of their faith a bit (much) so that they can eventually answer Phier's question to a certain degree of satisfaction. Or they simply won't answer at all and keep themselves from every contemplating nasty conundrums such as these.

[Martin N]

Dawkins, for he convinced the world that something evolved from nothing, whereas every true sane human being knows that the only one true creater is the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Dawkins will surely boil in hot spaghetti sauce for all of eternity for creating his silly theory on evolution, i mean who believes that ? when theres undeniable proof that our god exists, and its in the cookbook!

[Cozur]

Dawkins, for he convinced the world that something evolved from nothing, whereas every true sane human being knows that the only one true creater is the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Dawkins will surely boil in hot spaghetti sauce for all of eternity for creating his silly theory on evolution, i mean who believes that ? when theres undeniable proof that our god exists, and its in the cookbook!

You're thinking of Darwin, not Dawkins.

[Helm]

But atheism is a logical position and there are no souls to destroy. If there were he woldn't be destroying them, if anything an atheistic soul is a free soul.

Mind you though I don't think atheists tend to think about the issue deeply enough.

http://godisimaginary.com/i27.htm

No bacteria or mosquitos don't have an afterlife but they don't have a mind so I don't know what kind comparison that's meant to be.

[conon394]

Conon, I think you are missing the point that Phier was making. He's talking about how atheism (according to some religious people, at least) would set you on the path of eternal damnation.
Hitler certainly killed lots of people but (as the believer will tell you) the just ones amongst them will go to heaven anyway for an eternity of happiness.

Dawkins, on the other hand, effectively convinces people to not believe in the Holy Spirit and sends them to their downfall.

It remains a false analogy however. Dawkins has no power to compel merely to convince, thus wherever you think - that Atheists go to hell or not; Dawkins has only to answer for himself. He cannot (at least I never heard he does) hold a gun to someones head and force them to believe his view, he has not state power to use for malicious and evil ends. Thus it seems to me if someone is led astray merely by the argument (without compulsion) of someone they cannot blame Dawkins only themselves, they had free will and failed (in this scenario). Again at worst he is no more evil that anyone else who suggest alternatives to those who preach damnation for any dissenters and that is more than just the odd notable smug git of an atheist - and only to those who hold such views anyway.

Thus it's not just that Dawkins would be a proponent of a belief that 'is more or less harmless in a western tradition', it's that according to certain religious ideas Dawkins' ideas are positively lethal.

No matter how harmful his beliefs to some he has no power to enforce, compel, or threaten - thus unless you reject free will anyone convinced by the man must answer for him or herself.

That's kinda the problem when you start with ideas like 'eternity of suffering'. The 60 million people that died because of Hitler in WWII certainly suffered a lot, but if Dawkins gets one person to go to hell and experience an eternity of suffering, Dawkins clearly is the bigger bogeyman.

Not to be pedantic but how can he get anyone to hell? Its not like he a servant of Satan selling for evil powers thus anyone he does convince is on his own ...

In short if people have free will than Dawkins cannot be evil (beyond what he himself does) since anyone following him aside from maybe children and retarded people can choose to believe him or not. Hitler by contrast had all the powers of the state to bend to his evil design and did so cutting short the lives of millions of people often in the most horrible of circumstances with the aim of creating a merciless and vile worldwide regime more appalling and anti-humane than anything that had gone before - he was evil - the question is to my thinking an affront to anyone who suffered at the hands of the Nazis.

[Helm]

What kind of all loving God sends people to an eternity of torment for not kissing his ass anyway? Christians need to think that one through a little bit.

[Ludicus]

What kind of all loving God sends people to an eternity of torment for not kissing his ass anyway? Christians need to think that one through a little bit.

To be fair,
this link.
"Today, even the church is drawing back from the hell myth, realizing that it has no Biblical basis and is simply incompatible with a loving God"

[Martin N]

An arrogant, self centered one ?

[Helm]

I'd much rather go to Hell if heaven is only full of Christians praising God while he sits there looking smug.

[Arch-hereticK]

Any system that infinitely rewards/punishes finite deeds is obviously illogical and grotesquely immoral.

So Dawkins is slightly more respectable than Hitler in that regard.

[Gromovnik]

Dawkins is a lot more annoying.

[Watchman]

Mainly because he's not dead.