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

[I_am_not_mafia]

OK well at least I know what you are getting at now.

Personally I think that this is overthinking it. The discussion is about whether morality is objective or subjective and it's very easy to take it out of scope. These are common place terms, not strict scientific definitions. But as with anything philosophical, disagreement always seems to come when people apply a different scope for the definitions that they use. My yardstick is whether a definition is useful. I am not particularly interested in arguing semantics and fleshing out at what point a concept is no longer useful.

Me thinking about shit is overthinking by reference to the average christer by default.  They want to talk to us about pixies.  Sometimes, I want a more substantive discussion. 

I quite understand· Sometimes one wants a conversation with the adults without the children interrupting about how their favourite superhero will save the day.  

If it helps, I wrote a post on TTA back in 2014 about how subjective and objective were of limited use when talking about morality, but all the theists ignored it. I might stick with this in the future rather than push that it is only subjective.

Is morality subjective or objective? The question does not make sense.
...
Morality is by definition subjective but we can apply objective methods for determining what is consistent with our morality. But it gets more complicated than that when we ask why we have the feelings and emotions telling us what is good and bad. Because we have evolved them. The problem is that this is now out of scope of the original question. You can no longer apply the words 'subjective' or 'objective' to the process that gave us personal feelings, tastes and opinions.