If a person cannot do good deeds or strive to do better without "shooting up on God", then I'd say that's more to do with their own ego - something they fear, want to please, satisfy, impress, feel or whatever, rather than the purpose. To do good itself purely for its own sake, is I would argue, ethically far more robust.
Admirable self-confidence and egolessness indeed! http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-nichtern/buddhism-religion-the-dis_b_561855.html
My thought today is that whether believing in something would be not as important or meaningful as whether belieing in something could most likely lead to a common goodness/wellbeing, sometimes self-goodness/wellbeing! Whether the something is true or not in a scientific sense backed by contemporary evidence as proof! Of course, we would need to have an objective way to find and define what is a goodness! I think Jesus' theory has already covered/mentioned the above thought.
My thought today would be that your thought today is a good thought. My second thought would be, are you really saying .. like bible jesus for instance? If so my third thought would be you are spot on! Believing in something only for the sake of it leading to a common goodness/wellbeing and not because one is following instructions, is much more like a way to objective goodness in my view. In short religion or 'Jesus theory'; bad reason to do good.
Church of England criticized over prayers for atheist Richard Dawkins "London (CNN)The Church of England has been accused of "trolling" scientist Richard Dawkins after it tweeted it was praying for the outspoken atheist's recovery from a stroke. Dawkins, a distinguished evolutionary biologist at Oxford, is one of the world's leading voices for secularism, and a fierce critic of religion. When news broke Friday that the 74-year-old had suffered a minor stroke, forcing him to cancel scheduled appearances in Australia and New Zealand, the Church of England retweeted a report of his condition with a statement offering "prayers for Prof. Dawkins and his family."..." http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/14/europe/uk-dawkins-stroke-tweet/index.html
I attended a public seminar about peace, war and religion held in a university. A question about changes was put up to the panelists. She (a researcher/book-writer) said/replied, in the muslin community, often a religion leader is quite open minded person wanting the general believers to be open minded too, in order to accept more contemporary changes as practically applicable/required, rather than merely following the religious holy books too rigidly in any absolute sense. But it is usually rejected by the general believers, as they simply don't want any changes according to their traditions and conventions. Sometimes even saying the leader being wrong according to the holy books! They expect their leader to be a fundamentalist ! SAD! I saw a documentary, very roughly as far as I can recall, about the potential changes proposed by the leaders within the Anglican, to be more liberal and more tolerate and inclusive in this contemporary world! But too great the worry of their believers could break up the whole church by some opposite forces within! Same!
Time to end prescriptions for drugs "...On Wednesday, the eight justices currently on the court heard arguments in Zubik v. Burwell, which addresses whether non-profit religious organizations can be compelled under Obamacare to pay for contraceptives in their employee health plans. ...In the case of contraceptives, the U.S. remains just about the only country in the world that doesn't make the birth control pill available over the counter and that restriction makes them a political football and more expensive to boot..." http://www.cnbc.com/2016/03/24/time-to-end-prescriptions-for-drugs-commentary.html