Are acts judged "good" or "evil" based solely on the intention of the actor?

I rather agree with this.  But it's got a few potholes.  If you claim sole knowledge of the definition of what makes the world a better place, you do so at the expense of others who think *they* know what makes the world a better place.  And that isn't "working together."  So what is the missing element?  Tolerance of differences.

In order for all to work together to make the world a better place, you can't write off an entire group of people who might have different ideas than you do (ubiquitous 'you') - that's the exact definition of not working together.  This is the struggle I see between groups that hold different philosophies today.

Let's suppose someone agrees with that statement so I can proceed with the logic.  In order for groups to have tolerance of each other's ideas - for the purpose of "working together to make the world a better place" - they will have to suspend their beliefs as being critical to the work.  All beliefs without objective (testable and verifiable) evidence are subjective.  Therefore, governing actions for making the world a better place based on any religious or philosophical untestable and unverifiable idea is "evil" by your definition, because it sacrifices the equally subjective, untestable, unverifiable ideas of another group for the sake of your own.

It is not easy, as a Christian or a Muslim, for example, to suspend the rules of "rightness" that the Bible/Quran teaches.  These forums (and do I need mention the entire world?) are full of intolerance of differing ideas, and I infer that the people that are intolerant would be very satisfied if everyone would change to their way of thinking.  This is not working together.  It is therefore "evil" (by the above definition which the OP agrees with.)

I often think that people don't believe we can work together unless we all believe the same thing first, and so the current push is to eradicate all other beliefs first, and then we can "work together."  In the same way that Jesus points out that if you expect a gift in return for giving a gift, then you haven't really given a gift in the first place, this argument is fallacious.  In other words, it takes no special moral fiber to be tolerant of people who agree with you hook, line, and sinker.  It is far more noble and giving to express tolerance of those with whom you disagree.  Thus, tolerance of people who have different beliefs is integral to "working together" and anything else is "evil."

Evil is anything done outside of God's laws. I view this with a secular reasoning, though, as I believe that it has unintended side effects that hurt God, not it being evil for evil.

Yes, pretty much.

So how do you propose to work together to make the world a better place?  Do you think that those people who believe in something different than you will have any interest in cooperating with someone that labels them as evil with absolutely no concrete evidence that you are right in your beliefs and they are wrong in theirs?

Just make the statement.  Since you believe that God says it's his way or the highway, you say that, too, because if you don't, then you aren't staying in line with what God wants.  But none of you actually come out and say that.  Why is that?  Is it just possible that your gut twists a little when you think that way?

Don't feel bad.  That is the common denominator of all religions that include a deity and a book of doctrine.  "We're right, you're wrong, and I can't work with you because of it because that would take me out of alignment with what my doctrine says."  Now look around and see where that's gotten us and where it's taking us.  Are you SURE that's what your God wants?  Better be REAL sure.  A mistake here could be critical.

SC, I really don't care if Lula says something you believe to be off topic. If Lula thinks it wrong, just listen and shoot down the idea, or agree with it. If you can't disagree, why complain?

It exactly proves my point, Lula.  Thanks.  Christians, at least, can not work with all others because of fundamental differences in belief.  No belief is objectively provable, so Christians support not working together over principles they cannot prove objectively to non-Christians to be true.

I KNOW what you say God says.  But that's subjective, not objective.  Therefore, one or more groups of human beings are left out to dry.  

Thank you for so clearly illustrating the intolerance that I was speaking of.  I knew you or some other fundamentalist would come through with my point.  Well done.

I'm coming in late but to answer the question about whether we are born evil or not is an interesting one.  So are we born evil? 

Is sin evil? 

Because if it is, then we are born evil. 

King David wrote in Psalm 51 "I was brought forward in iniquity and in sin did my mother conceive me."

Job asked "who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean?"  "Who is born of a woman that he can become righteous?" 

Paul wrote later to the Romans that we are all covered in sin. Trying to clothe ourselves with the good works of righteousness is nothing but covering ourselves with filthy rags.  He also said that while we were enemies of God, Jesus died for us anyway.  Isn't an enemy of God considered evil?

He wrote to the Ephesians that we were dead in our sins.  Is that evil? 

I believe scripture teaches quite clearly we are all born into sin.  So the question is does that make us evil?   What is sin? 

To look at a newborn baby and say he's innocent is not theologically correct.  We must remember that God doesn't look at the outside he looks at the spirit.  He doesn't see a newborn baby like we do.  God is outside of time and knows exactly who this spirit is and will become. 

So the answer I believe is yes.