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.

That makes no sense. We have a moral life and we don't need to fear a god to do what is right. We do it because that is the right thing to do, not because of the reward in heaven.

If there is a God, Will that God punish you if he finds out you didn’t believe there was a God? Is that what this premise is about?
If you live a good moral, life and are an ethical person and a generous and kind person, And you still don’t believe that there is God, is that God going punish you? Just because you didn’t believe? What kind of a SOB of a God is that?

So far I have not seen any evidence that there is a God.
Does that mean that gives me the freedom Lie, steal, cheat and kill? Because no “God” is looking?
The someone that said that has no self respect.
pretending believe in God is living a lie.

I guess I have questions as well as preliminary thoughts about what this entails. What does it mean to "live your life as if there is a God"? What is the motivation to do so? What are the supposed benefits? At first glance, it looks like an argument that one cannot be good without God — which I wholeheartedly reject. But then I think maybe it's similar to my aunt's assertion that people draw strength and comfort in their faith and she thinks that people should believe even if there is no God; I tend to think of this as an infantile view that keeps people from dealing with the problems and challenges that face them, and I don't think everyone feels enriched by religion. In fact, I'd suggest that even if there were a God that it's better to live as though none exists: no action in exchange for reward, no thought of another life that wipes this one clean, no God to fix all of our problems. We need to take responsibility for the life we lead, how we care for one another, what sort of world we leave for future generations, without thinking a deity will render the solutions. I think humanity needs to mature and grow without falling back to the fanciful notion that a magical celestial being will fix all of our woes.

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

So far, no one has actually responded to your question. In essence, you are asking whether people should live by a set of “god-based” principles, without actual reference to any god. This is NOT Pascal’s theorem, which concludes that you should believe in a god as a hedge against the risk that one might exist. One problem with the concept is choosing which set of principles to live by. Assuming some subset of Judeo-Christian mores, most of them are humanist in nature: treat others as you would be treated; give to the poor; accommodate strangers, etc. If that is the moral code, then the only significant difference between a humanist and theist approach is that the humanist doesn’t expect to be rewarded or punished, except by his/her own conscience. In other words, most humanists already live as if a god exists, but without the childlike dependence in third party approval that that implies.

that would be the path of a chickenshit hypocrite.

Which God? Should we believe in Zeus “just in case”. How about Ra? Allah? Oh geez what if I follow the wrong one????

I think I would be living the same way...knowing right from wrong and it has nothing to do with behaving as if....It has always seemed instinctual to me.

I feel like once you allow something else <God> to be in control of your life, actions, judgments and beliefs; intellectual evolution halts. Honest critical thinking is sooo valuable and to trade it in for some fairy tale sounds like madness. Hard Pass!

I think it's nonsensical. It's confused thinking.

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

[infidels.org]

What always struck me about Pascal's Wager (and people touched upon it below) is that the "logic" behind it would suggest you should believe in every god anyone ever believed in (or could believe in) "just in case" any of them are true, as to not jeopardize your afterlife. But as Hitchens said, there could be a god and no afterlife...or an afterlife and no god...or a trickster god that punishes good people...etc., etc.

The list of things you COULD believe in to cover your eternal a$$ is very, very long, and nearly all of which is mutually contradictory.

Besides, "believing" something just-in-case doesn't sound like a genuine belief to me in any case. No one would think jumping off a building would be a smart bet just-in-case The Force is real and the Jedi will save you from certain death, and then save the world because that's just the kind of thing they would do.

I live my life without regard to a fairy tale.

I know that every human being gets hungry, just as I do.

etc

I think it’s BS

I don't see any evidence for the existence of any god past or present, therefore I cannot live my life as if there is one unless I make the god up myself. So if I have to believe in the god I make up I'm only believing in myself, which I already do

No one needs God to be good

Google something like "Pascals wager critical" and you will find a thousand places where this argument is shot to pieces.
Most of them will point out that there are thousands of gods set in tens of thousands of religions, all of which religions claim to have exclusive access to god. (Exclusive is important because it is the only thing they have to offer, that sets them apart from deism and one another.) Therefore they usually say, which one do you pick ?

BUT, here is one small bit of logic that you will not often hear. How do you know that god, if it does exist, does not respect agnostics, and atheists the most. For their reason and for not telling it what it should be, or insulting it by saying that it is exclusive, i.e. racist culturalist. You may as well bet on it liking us best. Its the same bet..

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".

This is most commonly attributed to Pascal
[en.wikipedia.org]

In my view there are two serious flaws in this argument.
First is what the hell would God want me to do? Unless you are stunningly ethnocentric and willing to only accept your most local god obsession, you have to accept that there are so many gods out there it would be impossible to choose one to know which is the true one.

The second problem is that having chosen one path, following the creed of a bunch of crackpot religionists is the most sure fire way of wasting the only life you know you have in the hope of some dodgy promise of a uncertain future state.

In my view you need to be true to yourself and live according to your best guess, that most refects your nature.
In any event - if you want to insist that you are the creation of god, then living close to your nature would have the same effect. Following a natural path means enjoying yourself more, eating, drinking and having sex; loving your dog, and even your progeny!! These things are most likely to fly against all the advice of most religions.
So play the wager by all means, just reject all religion.

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.

Which god? The christian/Jewish god is no hero. He's an evil thing.

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

Utter nonsense!