[GS523523]

The difference is, like Jesus taught, religious people will care for others expecting nothing in return (reward is from God), but secular people will, even if it's as small as the narcissistic satisfaction of "look at me I'm such a good person." As soon as the cost-benefit of caring for family goes deeply negative, there's no reason to keep doing so.

[eloisant]

OK, you did it again! Exactly what I'm talking about. You think that without religions we're just selfish calculating bastards.

We're not, I promise.

[GS523523]

How do you make decisions without calculations? we're all calculators, aren't we?

Can you provide a reason to care for someone that has nothing to do with religion and nothing to do with a personal/societal gain?

[muwtyhg]

So your desire to believe in a God must also be a calculation you made selfishly. You do expect "something" in return for your religious devotion, and it seems to be based around your desire to not go to Hell, not some greater moral duty to your fellow man or a desire to do Good for the sake of it.

Otherwise, why does Religion need a punishment like Hell at all?

[kelnos]

> Can you provide a reason to care for someone that has nothing to do with religion and nothing to do with a personal/societal gain?

Sure: because I want to. That's it. I don't need a justification. I don't need a god up in heaven threatening me with eternal punishment if I'm not good to other people.

I just think caring for other is a good thing, and not caring about others is bad. I didn't need religion to help me draw that conclusion, and personal or societal gain has nothing to do with it. I think it's the right thing to do, so I do it.

You can dive down into the depths of it and think about whether any supposedly-selfless act is truly selfless. "Well, sure, you helped out your friend, but that made you feel good, right? Selfish!" But I don't buy that line of reasoning. Even if helping someone does make you feel good, so what? That's good too! But maybe sometimes it doesn't feel good. Maybe sometimes helping someone is difficult, and causes hardship. But people do it anyway. People who aren't looking to a religion to guide them.

[nobody9999]

>Can you provide a reason to care for someone that has nothing to do with religion and nothing to do with a personal/societal gain?

Yes.

[Gander5739]

Common decency.

[GS523523]

That's exactly His argument - you're telling yourself "it's the decent thing to do" but it's actually "doing this makes me feel like a decent person."

[Gander5739]

But is there really a difference? You can can argue that any apparently selfless act is driven by a desire for self-satisfaction, but from an external view the outcome is the same in either case.

You claim that, because for religious believers this desire to help people is driven by faith rather than what you would term self-interest, it's somehow more resolute. But I'm unconvinced that that is the case, nor that people consciously or not, weigh up decisions to care for others in such a calculating manner.

If the divine impetus made you infallibly caring, I would perhaps concede the point, but I haven't see much evidence of that so far.

[GS523523]

Right, the desire of religious believers to help others is also self-interest. But the difference is that the expected reward comes from God, not from others. That makes it more resolute, because for the secular person if the cost of the care greatly outweighs the benefit of "common decency", then there is no reason to continue. Whereas, for a religious believer, the benefit of carrying out God's will is immeasurable.

As for your last point - we're all sinners and we're not perfect. The calculation is there, but the individual's faith and/or abilities might be lacking.

[kelnos]

Wow, that's a load of garbage. Clearly you have some bigotry against people who don't follow your religion. Hard to take any of your opinions on this topic seriously.