Do you wish there's a god?

[Abaddon_ire]

No, I believe there are statements that can be objectively true about reality, according to the definitions of terms used. But no one has the authority to decide/declare which are true with respect to reality, because that would require some sort of omnipotence/omniscience/perfection. Of course, anyone can say anything they like, so to speak, but that doesn’t make what they are saying true or even convincing.

There are also statements which can’t be objectively true or false, because the terms they use are either too vaguely defined, or rely on personal opinion.

So is 1+1 =2 objectively true? Or subjective?

It is internally consistent according to the system that describes it. In a different system, 1 + 1 = 10 And that is also true and internally consistent with that system. You should know. 1 + 1 = 10 is the system you are posting with right now.

Is the wrongness of torturing innocent babies just for fun, objectively true, or subjective opinion?

Both.
If we take the principle (subjectively) of "do no harm" as a moral foundation, the according to that subjective principle, we can say that torturing babies is objectively immoral under that system.

If it's a subjective opinion, should i take it when you say it's wrong to torture innocent babies just for fun, you're just stating a personal taste or opinion, like telling me dominos pizza tastes bad?

Nope. It depends what the moral foundation you use actually is. Once that is identified, objective assessments can be made as to whether any act meets that standard or fails it. Thus to continue the previous example, if the moral foundation is to "do no harm" then objectively, torturing babies is is immoral in that system. Expressing a pizza preference does no harm and is thus perfectly and objectively moral from that foundation.

This is not rocket magic.