You ever heard the saying that the root of all evil is money? This is what I tend to believe is normally the case. Get rid of money and everything will be fine. Now here's two cows for your wife.

Without evil there would be no good, so is it good to be evil sometimes?

Killing somebody is an extreme example, for most people it may be evilest act somebody can do.

According to your definition school bullies are evil, they do something wrong for no other reason than to do something wrong. However, give them a gun and allow them to kill the bullied guy. I'm sure that not all of them will do it. There are levels in evilness.

When I was 2 years old I didn't know anything about gods, good, evil or anything, but I didn't cause any harm to anybody without a reason. Not everyone in my class was like this, though.

So the answer is that some are good, some are evil, others are greedy, not all good guys are as good as the others (same thing for evil people and any type of person you can imagine), and on top of that this depends on the situation. Some will do good under certain conditions or evil under different ones.

It all depends on whether you think nature is evil. Is a male lion evil for eating male lion cubs? No, it's just how lions work. No one is wringing their hands and trying to put social programmes in place to prevent lions from eating ther young.

So what is evil? Not nature.

Evil is that we've come up with a moral code that says some behaviours and attitudes are bad and others are good, and we have concluded that people are actively able to choose between the behaviours and sttitudes the moral code says are good and those the moral code says are bad. If you mostly choose the bad actions and attitudes then you are judged by the moral code to be evil.

It's not our nature that makes us evil, but acting in opposition to the established moral code.

So the real question is, should the moral code judge actions as evil which are part of one's nature? And if so who gets to decide what's in and out of the moral code? Certainly not our leaders, as they are some of the most egregious breakers of the moral code.

Some people believe incest should be OK, others believe incest is terribly evil. Who's right? Some species actively avoid incest through some sort of non-moral process, but other species have no biological controls preventing incest. So nature is inconsistent on this matter. Same with eating babies.

We would say human sacrifice is evil. But nature would say, if the strong kill the weak via human sacrifice that simply strengthens the genepool by getting rid of the weak (mostly) and so benefits the population as a whole. It's our current moral code which says human sacrifice is evil, but it's not always been thus.

The fact that people feel bad when they harm others disproves this theory.

People are not born bad but rather tune out the part of their brain telling them to be good.

Though i will admit there are exceptions to the rule.

Actually I think there is an evolutionary basis for human beings being civil and cooperative with each other .... we never would've survived as a species in the wild if we were constantly killing each other.

We had to survive in a group/tribe culture to hunt, raise children, and protect each other. I think this is especially true of humans because physically we're not anything special ... put a human in a cage with a tiger or a lion and we're not lasting very long. We needed to be in group and to be able to think and communicate to be able to do things like hunt in a more cerebral way, since physically we're relatively on the weak end of the natural kingdom.

I think the natural human "equilibrium" is actually to be in a relatively peaceful state with the person next to you. It's advantageous to human survival, a person who's running around like a nutcase, killing and raping etc. at will would be counter productive in an evolutionary sense and could put the tribe/group at risk.

Feeling "bad" or guilty when you've done something awful very well may be an evolutionary "reflex", which eventually we came to rationalize as morality. 

Exactly. Doing bad things in that case would cause nothing but harm to yourself and everyone around you. People will choose to be good as long as they see good actions as the most benefitial thing to do. For instance, being born in an area with poor education and/or being born with more or less mental issues can stop you from gaining enough (if any) 'profit' from good behavior.

As for the whole definition of evil discussion, yes of course everyone has their own definition of the word (I don't prefer to use that word myself, but I imagine most people do), but pretty much everyone must agree that the basic crimes such as stealing, raping, and killing are considered evil. In other words: Gaining 'profit' by harming others.

On another note; I was hoping to see more religious people express their views on the 'lack of hell' scenario I presented.

you either die a hero or live long enough to become the villan

I disagree.  I think bullies, bully because it makes them feel powerful.  Or most do anyway.

It's an extreme example, but my point is... when given the choice between benefitting ones self, and then benefitting ones self and hurting a stranger....

People will take Option A.

You could make it murder, you could make it "I give you 10 dollars" or "We steal 10 dollars from her."

Most people aren't indifferent to hurting others... even complete dicks.

Therefore man's default is to do no harm... and inetentional harm is only done when it's the only way to complete ones goals.

Or to look at it another way.  If you set up two exact booths that both sold 20 ounce coca cola bottles.... and one said "50 cents of each sale goes to "feed the children.""

Most people are going to the booth that gives half it's proceeds to charity.  Likely the other booth only getting buisness should a line arise.

In a scientifically controlled expierment with idential outcomes for the agent.... he will pick the outcome that best benefits others as well.  This would make human's "Default" nature good.

Only through surroundings and circumstances do people switch into what we'd describe as "evil."

Hell isn't real. It was added in later editions of the bible to scare stupid people so they believe in god