Back to the original question that Jack posed. "Good and evil" are generally defined by religionists. There is an extreme view of this that is called Manichean.

To define "good and evil" successfully, you would have to take it out of a religious context for it to make any sense. You could also use the terms "functional" and "dysfunctional" which removes the religious onus from their meanings.

Also "good and evil" must continually be defined and redefined for much of this is in the
"eye of the beholder".

There is a general societal idea of "good and evil" which has to do with what is workable to maintain a stability in society. This doesn't require any religious belief. Often, this is what some call "common sense". If you violate another by violence or theft, it follows that the same can be applied to you. The original meaning of the Golden Rule predates Christianity and says in historical accuracy, "Don't do to others which you would not like done to you". I think that works for atheists as well as anyone else. (I insist that this concept came before any bible was conceived.)

Morality is another problem. This has to be continuously defined as well. It also must be debated rationally. For example, I consider war to be immoral. This debate might last for days but it's still an important one in my opinion.

Also, many religions can entertain immoral acts as well as some governments and laws.
Again, these must be debated rationally in context.

The moral atheist does indeed exist but probably requires definitions and discussions to reveal this. I will conclude by saying that religion and morality are not always compatible.