PMFJI, but there is a 3rd option: Live your life with an attitude of "tough love". Remember when Oprah started her purely private charity project where she adopted several inner city high school students & their families (IIRC)? The result was a disaster! It was just as bad as if the government had thrown (more) money at these families.For my own part, I will freely admit I am unlikely to be quick to help anyone other than friends and family. I'm not down at the soup line dishing it up for the homeless. Therefore I can't be calling on anyone to do that. But if they like to do that, more power to them.
But which makes for a better society? That in which one is implored and pushed (by society and by God) to do good works for others (including strangers), or one in which we send off a check to the government bureaucracy to do good works for us, and then sit back and wash our hands clean? As an atheist, you have no powerful presence in your life (that you discern, anyway) pushing you to give of yourself to others. I do not have that luxury.
As you can guess, my attitude is closer to jlogajan's in this regard. But this is a pragmatic question, which can only be answered by history & economics. (Which is why federalism is so great a concept: The "laboratory of democracy", someone called it.) The answer is a practical one, and in a free & open society the best constellation of attitudes, social structures, economic systems, & laws should eventually take over the meme pool.
But this is true whether we rationalize it as coming from some external Authority Figure or simply recognize it as the best evolutionarily stable strategy we've discovered so far.
As for being an atheist meaning I have no Authority Figure watching my every move, that is true. I had to arrive at my philosophy of life by thinking everything through. I believe it does take more mental effort to be a fully consistent moral athiest than it does to simply accept the religion you were born & raised with. But not much, really. Meanwhile you could say the same thing for someone who converts from one religion to another.
No, really, this is still the 2nd option. A Christian is called to help others, and to use his/her brain (Be as wise as serpents...). That certainly includes and does not preclude a tough love approach, when appropriate.
Agreed. But after thinking everything through, an atheist may well decide they don't need to be concerned about others' welfare (and many do decide such). A Christian does not have that option. Finally, I would add that Christianity is hardly a non-thinking religion! On the contrary, it requires deep thought to put into action its morality. At the end of the day, Christians are called to treat others in a certain way. Atheists are not (unless they happen to decide that there should be a reason for such).
But the 'best' constellation of attitudes, structures, systems to achieve what end? Pareto optimality, so that on average more people have more goods? Long life optimality, so that people live, on average, longer lives? Sexual optimality, so that people, on average, have more sex with more people? Christianity comes in the reverse way. It imposes a particular way of living, and presupposes that that way will lead (if followed) to happier lives (and less pain for others). People left to their own devices, as you suggest, lead to structures, attitudes, etc. that reflect both the good and bad qualities of people. Such bad qualities include: selfishness, using people for sexual gratification (like porn)(which is a kind of selfishness too), greed, etc. etc. Christianity tries to help people rid themselves of the not-so-nice tendencies, and assumes that society will be much better once that happens.