In this clip Richard Dawkins dodges the question of how atheists can lay claim to morality while undermining the basis for its objectivity:
Dawkins regales the audience with examples of what he views as stupid religiously inspired morality.
He then goes on to list what he believes are “good”, “acceptable” or “reasonable” examples of morality, implying a he has reference by which he is judging them. If his reference is little more than a personal preference seasoned with a pinch of contemporary middle-class pseudo-reasoned tendentiousness, why would he think he has the right to impose his version morality on the rest of us; if it is an absolute reference, he has denied his own premise.
Kindness to animals is recent?
“Don’t muzzle an ox when he is treading grain”
Hummmmmm………