This would lead to all sorts of insanity, like reliance on "thoughts and prayers" instead of action, the general populace consumed by guilt and neuroticism and fear of majik, and diversion of money to "priests" and "shamans" who claim to have the keys to the spirit world. Nah.

Considering the variation in peoples concept and expression of "God" its a pointless statement. Too me what they are really saying is you should live your life in fear of "DAD". Which too me is the biggest bull shit aspect of religion.

I think knowing how unique we are in the universe, and how borderline miraculous it is for us to get to consciously be a part of it, aspiring to live a good life doesn't require pretending there might be a god.

False.

The most ridiculous idea, on the contrary, If you believe in god it's advisable that you live your life as if there isn't any god, so you don't waste it! And who is that 'someone' to send him to the inquisiton!

Tha American Humanist Association tag line is "GOOD WITHOUT GOD."

I don't need to believe in a god to believe in doing good.

Richard Dawkins says he lives a moral but non religious life because he wants the world around him to be moral not because he fears some God.

Nonsense. It would prevent you from thinking for yourself. Religions want to tell you what to believe.

The End of Pascal's Wager: Only Nontheists Go to Heaven

[infidels.org]

I think the big problem is "Which God?" I know they will say their god of course, without proof it exists, or is even moral - but Krishna, Allah, Yahweh Direct, and Yahweh via Jesus are the big four to chose from typically. Given they only adhere to 1 and disregard the other 3, I just use their argument back against them "You should live your life as if the other 3 are real".

By exactly the same argument even if you don't believe in florescent, pink fairies it is advisable to live your life as if there were florescent, pink fairies.

That sounds SO sensible, doesn't it?

This is basically a varient of Pascal's Wager - it was a silly and invalid argument for him, and re-stating it in different words does not mean it suddenly makes sense.

I believe in that... I Sin like the xtians!!!!!!!

Utter nonsense!

By observation I can see most people are acting good on their own but I do feel like there should be a clearer set of rules that would define morality. People twist the meaning of the bible to suit their own needs of the time and frankly it isn't that clear. Trump is a good public example of how unclear morality from the bible is represented. Whatever is what he wants at the moment is of course, the best for all.

My hypothetical god is SEILENOS
[theoi.com]

I don't know that character seems like a really bad role model if it means I should live my life in a humanistic empathetic way I have never needed a hypothetical role model to do so

it's pretty obvious that the socio/psychopaths that run the world don't subscribe to that idea.

Is that the same as all trump lies that start with "some people say...?"
I guess that would be that it's okay to kill people in the name of religion, that we should fear an all-knowing, all powerful and all-loving god... we get to blame anything bad that happens on us and all the good stuff is god's plan...
When I ask religious people now how their day-to-day life would change if there wasn't a god and they have no answer... your suggestion would be just as ridiculous as thinking there is a god.