One sentence that throws the problem of evil out of the window.

[I_am_not_mafia]

For the record, I don't think it's right to treat animals inhumanely before slaughter. With that being said, I don't think it's immoral for a lion, or bear, or wolf or whatever it is to eat us.

Are you vegan? Do you only eat food that you have hunted yourself? I take it that you also avoid all dairy products as well because the dairy industry is totally inhumane.

This is the thing. You are asserting that morality is objective. Your argument is that there is this one act that you and almost everyone else condemns as evil and that because you feel so strongly about it, then this shows that it is objectively true.

It's a falsifiable hypothesis. It takes just one person to think that raping and torturing children is not necessarily evil to show that there is a difference of opinion and therefore is subjective. But you ignore any posts where people mention groups like Nambla, or any mention of a society that may enforce it (e.g. Sparta)·

And then you call atheists who acknowledge that not everyone has the same opinion as thinking that a "person who rapes, tortures, and kills a child is not an evil person. And doing those things to a child is not an evil thing to do." I (subjectively) find that quite offensive.

Yet like most theists you excuse animal examples of evil as animal behaviour, while ignoring that humans too are animals. But by doing so you thereby constrict evil to human acts, yet at the same time assert that evil will still exist even if the human race were wiped out.

You do not understand what subjective and objective means.

Subjective means that something is "based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions".

Objective is "(of a person or their judgement) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts."

So if you assert that evil exists and it is not a subjective opinion, then define what it is. If it is a fact, then it is an observable, falsifiable and reproducible feature of reality, then show us how to measure it. When is evil present and when is it absent? But as I said, you won't be able to do this. Whatever definition you come up with, will fail in the grey areas. Tell us how objective evil works and how it influences human behaviour. Although how you will square this with a belief in free will I don't know.

Do evil people know that they are evil? Most people rationalise and excuse what they do, even when they know that it is bad. It's easy to say child rape is evil, but what about less heinous acts? By focusing on one act and ignoring the grey areas of morality you are falling into the trap of biary religious thinking. At what point is something evil? I am almost completely vegan myself so I could consider any meat eater or dairy consumer to be evil because they knowingly subject many animals to a lifetime of suffering. But I eat fish as well for health reasons so will a complete vegan consider me evil? Especially as I actually like fish and know what the suffering that I am subjecting them to. I

All you have for an argument is, I feel really strongly about this particular act, but only when performed on a human on another human (and not by cute fluffy animals on each other), and therefore cannot imagine how someone could argue against that therefore my own viewpoint must be a universal law.