i suspect the effect of altruism movement is not a particularly god centered group. A lot of people's repugnances, repugnant reactions in these settings come from deep seated religious views. The interesting question, if you don't believe in god, how do you reject those repugnant conclusions? i'd probably be against putting a chip in everyone's skull that stimulates their happiness centre. This takes us away from from humanness, fro from our fundamental being human. I had an essay before everyone sort of started talking about long termism and about the issue of keeping humanity human.
Neuroscientist Erik Hoel talks about why he is not an "effective altruist" with EconTalk host, Russ Roberts. Hoel argues that the utilitarianism that underlies effective altruism--a movement co-founded by Will MacAskill and Peter Singer--is a poison that inevitably leads to repugnant conclusions and thereby weakens the case for the strongest claims made by effective altruists.