However, in Dawkins’ universe ‘purpose’ is nothing but a euphemism for the contingent outworkings of chance and necessity. Dawkins may try to compartmentalise ‘personal meaning’ from ‘cosmic meaning’, but he smashes through this artificial dichotomy with the giant iceberg of naturalistic evolution, reducing the personal to the impersonal, the free to the determined, and so sinking his supposedly unsinkable ship of ‘personal meaning’ in the icy depths of meaninglessness. Dawkins is quite right when he says that:
I can show that from a Darwinian point of view there is more Darwinian advantage to a male in being promiscuous and a female being faithful, without saying that I therefore think human males are justified in being promiscuous and cheating on their wives. There is no logical connection between what is and what ought. . . . 
However, the crucial point is that Dawkins' naturalistic philosophy gives him no grounds for saying that someone who takes the opposite point of view is in any sense wrong to do so – ‘There is no logical connection between what is and what ought’; its all just a matter of choice:
If somebody used my views to justify a completely self-centred lifestyle, which involved trampling all over other people in any way they chose. . . I think I would be fairly hard put to it to argue on purely intellectual grounds. . . I couldn’t, ultimately, argue intellectually against somebody who did something I found obnoxious. I think I could finally only say, “Well, in this society you can’t get away with it” and call the police. 
In other words, in the final analysis ‘might makes right’ and the Darwinian ‘law of the jungle’ rules.
Dawkins' atheistic worldview doesn’t justify ‘a completely self-centred lifestyle’, but then it doesn’t justify any lifestyle. The choice between lifestyles, including the choice between a life that includes abusing children and a life trying to prevent that abuse, is nothing but a non-rational manifestation of a Neitzchian ‘will to power’. As the agnostic philosopher Anthony O’Hear says of Dawkins, ‘this particular Darwinian is quite unable to explain why we have an obligation to act against our ‘selfish’ genes.’ 
Even Dawkins admits: ‘I realise this is very weak. . . But I still think it’s a separate issue from beliefs in cosmic truths.’  It is a separate issue in that truths about an amoral reality can never discredit Dawkins' moral choice not to condone child abuse (of the physical or mental variety); but it is far from being a separate issue in that truths about an amoral reality can never condemn child abuse either.
The doctrine of Hell is the flip side of the doctrine of Heaven  , and both doctrines testify that life is not only meaningful, it’s serious. Christians should give some serious thought to how (and what) they teach about Hell, especially to children; but atheists should give some serious thought to the fact that without Heaven and Hell, their worldview offers neither justice nor hope, in a Godless universe that fails to provide any moral grounds for the condemnation of child-abuse.