I sometimes think that religion tries to point out an 'ideal' way to live, by saying these things are good, and those things are bad.
But we never know if our actions will ultimately turn out to be good or bad. Indeed, any human action can have both good and bad effects, no matter whether the person was trying to achieve a good or bad aim. This is because good and bad are relative. If I win a million at the local poker game, that's good for me, but bad for the losers. So the same act is perceived as 'good' or 'bad' in accordance with what a person's past experience has taught him.
If there is any 'good' or 'bad', it is a subjective thing. We don't know if any action will produce more good or more bad, but we do know what our intentions were; either good or bad. But our intentions ultimately find their source in our earlier experience and learning, over which we have minimal control. You really can not control what experiences life will throw at you. And these experiences build your subjective morals and world view.
So Abrahamic religions are mistaken, when they prescribe 'good' and 'bad' actions, and rewards for 'good' and punishments for 'bad'.
I think that these religions need a new interpretation. If we would just consider our 'self' to be the society of mankind to which we belong, and act accordingly, life would be just as good as any heaven that we can imagine. If everyone lived for the benefit of all, viewing each 'other' as an intricate part of their 'self' identity, humanity would operate as one individual; perhaps as the god that we have always imagined.
I don't know if I believe in a god. But if you follow the science to its very basic level, there does seem to be some magic involved. Or at least some stuff which we are incapable of understanding. So I call myself agnostic.