Altruistic But Not Morally Good?

Altruism, generally defined as "an unselfish concern for the welfare of others," usually goes hand in hand with morally good, which differs from culture and beliefs. It seems likely an act could be morally good without necessarily being altruistic, but can an act be defined as altruistic without being morally good?
I believe the article mentioned that being self interested or altruistic can mean an act for one's own self that does not impact a negative connotation on others. Does this confirm that all altruistic acts are morally good? Suppose a person belongs to this hypothetical religion where they are required to cut them selves in order to sacrifice blood to their higher being. He thinks he is doing a good act, despite hurting himself, and this doesn't have a negative impact on anyone else. Is this morally good? Perhaps in his religion but most of us wouldn't agree. 
I find this to be a challenging concept to debate and understand, along with providing examples. I'm going to conclude that deciding whether an altruistic act is morally good or not, depends a lot on culture and point of view.

Top Priority: Family?

Everyone always says family comes first. And I certainly agree with that claim. But in my Q&A I proposed an example of person X who was working out of his home town in a weekend charity event. He received a call saying his sister was in a car accident and in ICU at the hospital. The doctor says she will recover. X is left with the decision to head home to help his family with emotional support, or stay at the shorthanded charity event where he could be helping hundreds of unfortunate people. I know if I was in this situation, I would rush home, no thought about it. I'd be choosing my sister over hundreds of strangers. Seems logical. But then again, I'm letting down the other staff, who now have to pick up my slack as well which could cause a backup in the event and possibly resulting in some people not being aided. Which act leads to the morally good and altruistic consequence? I feel like I should be saying the option to stay at the event but I still would choose my sister.

"Good Grounds" of God's Existence

Martin, I believe, argued there are no "good grounds" of God's existence but theists say otherwise. Which leads to, what are those grounds? According to Wikipedia's Existence of God article, there's several reasons supporting God's existence. First mentioned is the Aquina's Five Ways (Thomas Aquina) of which I simply summarize. First is the motion in the universe meaning we transitioned from potentiality to actuality, so there must be an initial mover because whatever is put in motion has to be done by another thing. Second, it's impossible for a being to cause itself, therefore there must be a first cause, uncaused by itself (which makes little sense to me). Third, Aquina's argument asserts that all beings are contingent, it's possible for them to not exist. At a time, nothing existed but with everything existing now, there must have been a necessary existence who is known as God. Fourth, all things that are good are called into a relation of a standard maximum of goodness, which then causes all goodness. Fifth and lastly, Aquina's argue that unintelligent objects cannot be ordered unless done by an intelligent being, God. 

There are many other arguments and examples for believing in a higher power such as God, much more than disbelieving in Him. I find this to be due to human history and the strong focus on the religion that once was.

Atheist Argument Against God's Existence

In the reading, it said atheists argue that the statement, "God exists" has been discomfirmed. I was really interested in how they can disprove His existence but not prove His existence. After googling "atheists disprove God," I came across a website called patheos.com. In a certain article (http://www.patheos.com/blogs/badcatholic/2011/12/atheists-disprove-gods-existence-again.html), there's a video of a scientist who managed to replicate religious experience with a "God Helmet" that applied electromagnetic waves to different parts of the brain. This disproves God because if the participant was very religious, she would have similar experiences in her place of worship that she did while wearing the helmet. She experienced figures around her, stepping out of her body, and warmth as if a fire was around her.
On the site, asktheatheists.com, one guy argues that one cannot disprove God then one cannot prove God either. Another even says that the fact that this question is still prevalent today is depressing.
Despite these two examples, it was difficult to find examples how the statement has been disconfirmed. Their main argument seems to be, since one cannot prove God, He does not exist. I was really disappointed in this research because I was really excited to read about how atheists have "disproven" God.

Naturalists VS Supernationalists

We had almost a full class long discussion whether one can believe in both naturalism and super naturalism. I mentioned  how I was in between, like several others in the class. I studied Advanced Biology last year and learned of evolution and all the scientific facts that support it. Within the last few years, my mother, my sister and her family began going to church, but we were never raised around church, my dad is atheist. I found it hard to believe in God and such a higher power because of the classes I took in school and my way of growing up. I even had a discussion with a lady who thought it was funny that she learned of how the earth is over 4 billion years old throughout school but it's really on several thousand years old. I wasn't going to argue with her but how can she simply disregard the facts? There are no facts leading to the existence of God. But does that mean He's not there?
I proposed the question, " could it be more beneficial to a society to be fully naturalists or super naturalists, or a combination of both?" I would say a majority of the class felt both were more beneficial because that way one can choose what to believe in and not be forced into one or another. Unless children are raised in a church going environment, they don't learn about until they become older and choose to or not to. But by going to school, they're forced to learn about the scientific facts, so they tend to lean away from religion and super naturalism.

Freedom of Religion

During the reading, I began thinking that a section of the First Amendment, Freedom of Religion, might have been designed to keep peace between citizens. We can have different outlooks on religions and perhaps even disapprove but everyone has the right to believe in what they choose. A student brought up that a person could sin with their hand, and they would have to remove their hand because it has sinned. Similar to the "An Eye For An Eye" principle. The student said that someone should tell them that this isn't right or "moral." But if someone went up to them and said that, they might not listen because their following their religion or belief. It could even cause potential conflict. So, could this act been created to keep peace? Or does the United States really accept such a wide variety of religions?