[Leonidas76]

This is of course a very interesting topic, which has been discussed rigoroursly in the past.

I believe Nietzsche comes closest with his analysis in 'On the Genealogy of Morality' showing the reversal of virues and what is meant by being 'good' throughout the ages.

If I remember correctly, and this is of course widely generalised, he starts with stating that under the Greeks and Romans, being good was being strong, being a 'real' warrior, fighting for your family and for honour. It was not helping the poor, the weak or being tolerant for other opinions. This all changed with the monoistic religions, Christianity, Judaism and to some extent Muslims (although I do not think he mentions them). There came a 'slave revolt in morality' which changed what we deemed good. Which then became caring for others, looking out for the poor and the weak, all the things we still associate with religion.

Religions claim what they believe to be 'good' based on natural law. Now I would dare to state that only if you believe in this natural law, you can truly believe in something such as good or bad, if you don't, and follow Nietzsche's analysis, that what is good or bad changes through history (look at the Nazi's, they were fully convinced they did 'good') then you cannot really believe in something as good or bad, it is simply a relative and an opinion.

So also while reading this thread, it obviously doesn't matter if you follow religion, as religious people can do 'bad' as well. But still we are comparing that with Christian and Jewish (or Muslim) morals, something which would suggest that 'being good' means 'acting religiously' although that doesn't mean attending church and reading the bible every day.