fuse,
Yes, there is always the problem of morality as expressed in an “operator’s manual”. However, can you see the paradox? As soon as you define morality you’ve placed constraints on expression. Theist or nontheist, holy scripture or scribble on toilet paper, is it not the same? 
fuse - God’s directions have been confusing to me. Sure, there are theists who feel the same way. But then it is a matter of getting the message straight - it’s a technical, and not philosophical, question. I do not count theology as philosophy - not Aquinas and not the Vedas.
I’m not sure that many theists see God as “someone else”. I don’t think “someone else” quite covers it for them. Could be wrong about that.
You’re spoiling for a theist/atheist fight - okay. I do not look for trouble, myself, probably because it abounds without any effort on my part.
Yes I suppose I am looking for a bit of trouble, but only because I know very well what is likely to happen. And I still don’t understand.
How do you get the message straigt? Can I decode a message from God?
I have to admit I find it very hard to talk about God without making it seem like He is “someone else.”
Could you give me advice on a better way to relate to God, or to think about what He might be?
I mean that he’s not just someone else.
I think, anyway.
Is your girlfriend just someone else?
Would you repeat that for the microphones, please?
I don’t know how to get the message straight. Maybe we should just keep talking until a theist shows up.
I have a feeling they are all PM-ing each other as they eat popcorn and watch.
I don’t know… : )
I was in a relationship with a very wonderful girl, but we are now recently seperated.
What do you mean, is she just someone else?
yes
I feel kind of bad, you know, because a lot of people on the forums like to draw out the theists so that they can argue every thing they say…and I can’t help but be interested in the arguments…
Most serious religious arguing seems like circular logic to me, but it gets me again and again…in this way even I am a slave to religion…
fuse - I mean that God is special. That he’s not just someone else.
Hang on, I’ll get my sledgehammer and will be right back. Perhaps there’s a pile-driver somehwhere on the property. I’ll look around.
fuse,
Just curious, but what do you feel when you say God? Not what you think, but what you feel? It’s quite possible that our understanding may lie in places beyond our words. Theist or nontheist notwithstanding.
okay, I’ll wait here…
and while I’m waiting let me wonder if it’s possible that everyone is born “good” and that everyone makes choices that they think are “good” and let me posit that maybe we are all doing the right thing because there is no such thing as wrong
there is no absolute concept as wrong I mean, because if there were absolute rules of morality they would be like an elusive set of directions for how to live
and like tent said
what do you think while we wait for your sludgehammer and the theists?
fuse - correct me if I’m wrong, but I sense a bit of a reaction to the idea of Original Sin in your comments.
What if everyone was born neither good nor bad, but just born?
hrmmm…actually I’m not sure I feel anything, I don’t believe in Him.
If I feel anything I feel a little bit incredulous, and a little bit in awe…
“Like can’t you see all of us talking about You down here? Aren’t you going to do anything?”
But beyond joking around about it, I feel like God is something that I’m not supposed to be able to communicate with, just an essence.
Or, maybe we can really simplify all this God stuff down to defining God as just whatever caused the universe, and (wouldn’t I be correct in saying) whatever caused us as well. In that case I still think of God as real but not with any feelings. God might just be nonliving. I think that is the case. Something that is nonliving that still exists, and might always exist…that could be God, couldn’t it?
faust,
if everyone was just born, do you want to go further and say that we just live?
maybe all this morality is just crap…because ethics aren’t absolute, like what may be ethical in one situation may not be ethical in another…there’s no reasonable logical form to right and wrong, it always depends, I see no design or pattern
fuse,
There is just the slightest chance you may be a healthy agnostic. 
I find both theist and atheist positions to be untenable. But there is a sensing of something… perhaps an essence?
tentitive,
do not mistake me, I think that the idea of a God like spiritual being of omnipotence is ridiculous
I was just thinking that if God was real how would I feel, but then like I said I don’t think that if there was a God He would be a being of any sort, so it’s actually rediculous to talk about Him as a He
this is why I asked faust how I should relate to God when I talk about Him (there goes the idiotic “Him” again), but I think faust just wanted to make sure that I knew how much God means to theist and that I wasn’t simplifying their beliefs
BTW for everyone who is just tuning into this thread, I would like to move on to the question: “Why are theists kind?”
Fuse, Not all theists consider the concept of god as one of omnipotent creator, boss, father figure, etc. That is a concept peculiar to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Some theists would bristle at the definition of God that you are using…
yeah, I know
I don’t believe any Gods exist, at least the kind that you worship
do any religions have Gods that you don’t worship? If not then I guess you could pretty much classify me as an athiest
umm, it’s quite possible to be agnostic outside of any religion. Acknowledging and sensing ‘something’ doesn’t mean worshipping, at least in the bow-down-before sense. One can experience awe and reverence without naming. It is the perspective, not the labels.
would you consider yourself agnostic?
Then you would be wrong in thinking that. Just because an atheist is not interested in God does not mean that he has no vested interests of his own or for something other than God. And as soon as one seeks to achieve a goal, he has to take greater concern for the consequences of his actions.
People can have a consequentialist morality without appealing to divine figures or a teleological universe.
fuse,
Yes. Since I cannot prove or disprove, it seems the most plausible answer. Agnosticism is widely misunderstood in a cultural environment of either/or, known or not yet known. To say not knowable is anathema and is seen as attempting to straddle the either/or fence. It isn’t. It is a deliberate carefully thought out position.
philosophemer,
But doesn’t that lend itself to a moral relativist position? Highly subjective is it not?
sombody ban this girl. This chic is stupid. I’m not going to bite my tounge one bite. Freedom of speech bitch. And I have to say that this has to be the dumbest thread ever. Next to “Does God Read Books”.
Hey lil missy did you eat paint chips as a kid? Or was your mother a crack fiend? Which one is it?