Do you think all the religious people who do good now would stop Iif there were no religion?
Where you appear to be going with this is pointing out that religious people who are sincere would still be doing what they do from the sheer “goodness” of their hearts, so to speak, if there “were no religion.”
The problem, it would seem, is that if God does not exist – that is, if “goodness” is not an inherent quality of existence itself, then it would not be rational to be good. There would be no compelling reason to be good. It would make no difference, ultimately, to anyone, whether every person did good things or bad things since both are non-significant, non-real and ultimately meaningless , merely imagined qualities of existence. They could not function as “reasons for” in any morally obligatory sense.
The difference that God makes is that goodness is known to be an essential quality of existence itself. The significance, importance or value of all that exists, then resides in the very nature of Being itself. Ergo, human beings have moral worth grounded in the nature of Being - of God, Existence Itself.
If matter is all that does exist and things coming into or going out of existence are merely chance events with no ultimate significance, then, in a final sense, “good” is meaningless. It may be, parochially speaking, something cherished by human beings, but not inherent in reality.
God is the only possible grounding for morality that can make sense of how it is to be fully understood. The inherent nature of Being must ground morality or it can be nothing more than a convenient fiction used by humans to self-organize.
The problem, for you, is that you cannot even make the case that it is decidedly “better” for humans to do good out of sheer goodness of will than to do so for mercenary reasons such as to attain paradise. There would be no sense in which one or the other of those would be “better” or “good” since all qualitative determinations would be groundless. You might claim it to be so, but in no real sense is it so.
All the good done by anyone would, ultimately, count for nothing; as would all the evil. It would make no final difference at all.
The question to be asked is which of the two world views makes sense of morality and our awareness that life is meaningful, valuable, good and significant?
Even if we are not certain, it would seem that we have nothing, ultimately, to lose by acting as if it is fully endowed with all of those things, since to take the opposite to be true leaves us open to the full implications of “everything is permissible” because there are no grounds for thinking otherwise.
