One does not need to be Jewish or Christian or a member of any other religion to follow the Golden Rule.
Here is something to think about from the Wikipedia article on the Ethic of Reciprocity (Golden Rule):
"Ethics of reciprocity is fundamental to Buddhism. This is partly due to the fact that Buddhism, unlike theistic religions, does not rely on divine revelation. Therefore, in Buddhism, all aspects of teaching are regarded as wisdom rather than supernaturally derived and are to be undertaken voluntarily rather than as "commandments."
The very wisdom that you speak of is evidence that God has placed in man the knowledge of moral absolutes (see Romans 1:19) . It is up to man to come to realize that the presence of this comes from the fact that we are created by Him. That Buddhism does not attribute this to the Divine in no way negates the point that Giles is trying to make—but, rather, points out that man has concocted a myriad of ways to deny the existence of God (see Romans 1:21-32 for the results of such thinking.)
Morality and all of its associated ideals are rooted entirely in the presupposition some higher power defines what is correct for human behavior.
The "Golden Rule" is LUKE 6:31. "And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise," ...
The Golden Rule still has to be revealed to the well-armed majority at roughly the same time, and believed by that majority, or esle the first believer in the Golden Rule will also be the last.
“Ethics of reciprocity is fundamental to Buddhism. This is partly due to the fact that Buddhism, unlike theistic religions, does not rely on divine revelation.
************************************************
No, they just won’t admit to Divine Revelation.
Why is it that you believe “reciprocity”, or, the “Golden Rule” is good rather than believing that selfishness, greed, or brutality are good? In order to call unselfishness good and selfishness bad, there needs to be some absolute moral standard on which to make this call.
And if you believe in an absolute moral standard, isn’t that the same as believing in God, with the absolute moral standard being His Divine Revelation?
.
That may be. Of course, he's right...
For Atheists, there are no rules, except perhaps that man is supreme.
That’s the whole point - there is no God.
So, any moral code you choose to live by, you do so either out of cowardice or convenience. Cowardice, in that you either don’t have the courage to simply take what’s yours in the Darwinian sense, and let the weaker to their own fate. Convenience in that, since you choose to live in civilization, and you recognize that man is supreme, then government is the highest expression of that power.
The individual atheist is outnumbered and outgunned, or dependent upon others for their sustenance.
If you lived out in the sticks, you could pretty much set your self up, live off the land, and die that way.
Chesterton had a point. I wasn’t aware of that poem until I read this thread, but it sure makes the observation eloquently.
My observation is that most atheist seem to be stubborn agnostics. They haven’t enough evidence God doesn’t exist, but they have enough faith in their position that they proclaim themselves atheist.
Most aren’t sure enough to realize that they can shed the whole Judeo-Christian ethic, flinching if you will at the opportunity to actually practice what they are preaching.
In the end, you arrive in the same place - Atheism is every bit the belief system any other religion is. It actually requires more faith, and in the end few actually live its tenents.