Talking of atheism.
Talking of atheism.
I see most of this, especially the first part, as an ad hominem rhetorical fallacy. I feel he didn't answer the question, but rather attacked the opposing side.
In other words: "Yes, it is an irrational leap of faith" Atheism is just as good as theism if you ask me. I can control the minds of religious atheists just as easily as I can control the minds of religious theists. Theism or atheism--it makes no difference to me. The "ism" isn't as important as the person. Ignorant people are ignorant people.
Mankind needs to grow into a clear, concise intelligent being that considers how what we do affects and effects all other beings and elements of our world as a whole.
Organized religion and many of its concepts have become the basis for remaining stuck in a past that mankind has long since outgrown to a great extent.
We do not have to war any more. We have enough technology to see that all inhabitants of this planet have all they need to survive and be productive and happy.
Mankind, as a whole and as individuals, must realize the affect and effect their decisions and actions have on the world as a whole and individually before he can say he has reached his full potential as an intelligent being and life form.
That is not necessarily the current reality of human life on this planet.
What we choose to value as individuals and as societies has a profound affect and effect on the lives of all of humanity and the future success or failure, life or death, of this planet and its inhabitants. Let us grow to make better decisions to ensure life and success, rather than death and failure, in our individual and collective lives and the future we leave our children and grandchildren.
IT DOES MATTER. DO NOT DISMISS IT AS UNIMPORTANT.
Thank you for your consideration and participation in the effort to bring all of mankind into a greater, more productive and less destructive reality.
At the beginning of this video there is a good example of the strange kind of deluded person who feels a need for absolute morality. The fool doesn't seem to be aware that the precepts of what he perceives to be an absolute morality were crafted by an all-too-human priesthood as a means of controlling the gullible. Dawkins' response is in typically good form.
one of Dawkins' better (less strident) efforts. Ethics is a county in eastern England
@VulpesPyr- I am somewhat confused as to how you could have missed the answer in there. He clearly stated that the 'leap of faith' we use to come up with axiomatic morals is empirical testing of what works for us emotionally and what we can justify with legal theory and moral/political philosophy.
i.e. If an unspoken social rule leaves us emotionally upset or unfulfilled we evaluate it and change or discard it, within the bound of what we can logically justify legally.
@Dawkins- Once again, my friend, well articulated and eloquently presented rebuttal of the absolutist moral argument. The title of the video is a tad provocative, if essentially correct.