Its so easy to get away with such statements without debate or cross examination isn't it? Something that constantly amazes me about atheists are their repetitions of age-old canards. For instance,
"An absolute morality that a religious person might profess includes...stoning people for adultery? Death for apostasy? Punishment for breaking the sabbath?...I don't think I want an absolute morality."
It is quite unfortunate that Dr. Dawkins is unable to be corrected at the moment, due to the fact that his ears are filled with cement and refuses to debate anyone who might have the theological capacity to say, "um, Dr. Dawkins...did you know that the morality you mentioned was under a particular cultural and political context? Have you ever heard of Jesus and that thing he established called the New Covenant?" However, we all know how Dawkins might respond to such; "Oh, so you just pick and choose what you want to believe in the Bible!" I would challenge Dawkins or anyone to even begin to formulate an exegesis which would lend any credibility to the idea that, given an objective reading of scripture, the old covenant administration can and should apply today in our modern, western, political/cultural context. But as we know, Dawkins probably doesn't even know what "exegesis" means, and probably doesn't care. But that's atheistic ethics! Since the universe is nothing but raw matter and energy, what in the world is "honesty" anyway? The universe doesn't care about honesty.
"I want a morality that is thought out, reasoned, and discussed."
So...as long as "morality" follows this criteria, you'll agree with it? What if it is "thought out, reasoned, and discussed" that a particular race be wiped off the face of the earth? "No, no no, that would be wrong! That is causing harm to society!" Again, in a universe that is simply matter in motion, all you would be doing is wiping out complex bags of cells. The universe doesn't care!
"We don't believe in slavery anymore. We believe in equality of women. We believe in being gentle. We believe in being kind to animals...these are things that have very little basis in Biblical or Qu'ranic Scripture...We've grown out of [religious morality] because of secular moral philosophy and rational discussion."
Without the God of the Bible, you have no basis by which you can establish morality, other than "moral consensus." But Dawkins and other atheists don't really believe that. Why? Because there are entire societies out there with moral systems which the atheists find to be morally repulsive. But what happened to moral consensus? Those millions of globs of protoplasm in Islamic nations think that it is quite all right to imprison and kill apostates. What happens when they convince western nations to do the same? It sounds like Dawkins will be quite happy with the results, given that it would happen under "rational" discussion! But no, Dawkins and most atheists will reject such a consensus because they are made in the image of God and seek to borrow from the Christian worldview when push comes to shove.
(ht: Richard Dawkins.net)