Smith: One's assertion that God is a "fictional character" is, to put it mildly, a bit presumptuous. At any rate, your list can be subdivided into two camps, one that says to avoid doing harm and the other that says to actively do good. "Whatever is disagreeable to yourself do not do unto others," is a bit different from actively treating others the way you'd like to be treated. Bubba, I never specifically identified a particular god or supernatual being, but here I will. Indeed, I would group the judeo-christian god into my list of "fictional characters", just as I would the Greek and Egyptian pantheons. All supernatual beings make for good story telling, and for scaring little children into doing what they are told, unless they want to go to their particular faith's hell. Despite our differences, the two camps you pointed out is a very good observation. What one should one follow? Don't harm others as you would not like to be harmed, or do onto others as you would have done to you? Myself, I would probably go with the don't harm others, for the simple fact that perhaps others would not like me to do onto them some of the things that I would like done onto me. That being said, I won't avoid helping someone out in a time of need. (Giving money to bums begging on the streets excluded. I do have my limits. ) But again, my point in the first post was while I do believe that religion promotes good values, those same values could be promoted all the same without the need of supreme beings making all the calls. My God! Smith will suffice.