All I was trying to say was that for atheists nature will always be “red in tooth and claw”. There is no hope that this will ever change, that evil will be eliminated entirely. But I wasn’t saying that you shouldn’t act to alleviate evil when you get the opportunity to do so.

That is fine, and I personally agree with the following: for as long as humans exist I don’t think evil will ever be eliminated entirely. In fact, with some reasonable assumptions I think it might be possible to prove that evil will always be around.

But let me pick up on your earlier suggestion that evil is subjective. If that’s the case, doesn’t that mean that you face no compulsion to act? At least not until you have ascertained whether, in the subjective opinion of the child, adult, and society as a whole, that this particular activity is regarded as evil. Even then you wouldn’t really be compelled to take action. You could always say, “In my subjective opinion, I disagree”.

Let me rearrange your comments a little bit so I can understand them:

But let me pick up on your earlier suggestion that evil is subjective. If evil is subjective, then until you have ascertained whether, in the subjective opinion of the child, adult, and society as a whole, that this particular activity is regarded as evil, doesn’t that mean that you face no compulsion to act?

First, let’s be clear: evil need not always be considered on an instance by instance basis. For example, I, and I’m sure most people, will always consider the physical abuse of children (to take the given example) evil and it need not be considered on a case by case basis.

.

With that established, then of course what you write is true. To rephrase your comment: if a given action is not considered evil then obviously you’re not going to feel compelled to act against that action on the grounds that it is evil, while once an action is considered evil you will feel compelled to act against it (even if that action is simply to voice disapproval per your “In my subjective opinion, I disagree” quote).

That said, very few of us can live consistently with a framework that views evil as subjective.

I doubt anyone can live perfectly consistently with any framework. At the end of the day the best we can do is hold up something we consider to be an ideal (whether you hold that ideal to be Christianity, secular humanism, etc) and try and support each other in living up to that ideal.

So the fact that you feel a moral compulsion to act seems to me to count against the atheist view that the universe is a brute fact, rather than against the Christian belief that it is a good, lovingly designed, purposeful creation.

I’m sorry but this doesn’t make sense to me. Yes I, as an atheist, feel a moral compulsion to act in the example given above. But how does this say anything about the universe (existing) being a fact? Or the Christian belief that it is a good, lovingly designed, purposeful creation? It certainly does contradict your claim that “For the atheist … [t]here is no way it is supposed to be. So there is no real hope that anything can change.” which is why I gave the example. Are you trying to establish ‘morality implies a god’?

Is this more rhetoric? I doubt any atheists sit around thinking to themselves: “ahh evil, subjective as the term is, must nevertheless be the ultimate.”

When I say “Atheists deny God, presuming that evil is ultimate” I mean two things:
.
(1) Many atheists deny God because they presume that evil is ultimate, i.e. their conviction that evil is a fixed and permanent feature of the universe leads them to doubt God’s existence.**
.
(2) Even for those who have different reasons for disbelief, the denial of God imples that evil is ultimate. The Christian says, “this is not the way it is supposed to be”. For the atheist that is a meaningless sentence. There is no “way it is supposed to be”. So there is no real hope that anything can change. We might at times be able to alleviate evil, but we will never eliminate it.
.
.
** For example, for most of the 18 atheists who mention the problem of evil in Fifty Voices the existence of evil is at least one reason for disbelief. Taner Edis is an exception – while he thinks that this philosophical reason for disbelief “continues to resonate today”, he admits it has shortcomings.

In a sense, both atheists and Christians “decide…too soon”. Atheists deny God, presuming that evil is ultimate. Christians, believing that God is ultimate, wait for him to bring an end to evil.

Is this more rhetoric? I doubt any atheists sit around thinking to themselves: “ahh evil, subjective as the term is, must nevertheless be the ultimate.” Personally, I’m an atheist because I haven’t been convinced by any theistic arguments – evil, whatever you take that to be, has nothing to do with it.

In the final analysis, one of them must go. The atheist’s mistake is to decide which it will be too soon.

This kind of assumes that the atheist once held some theistic position doesn’t it? After all, someone who has been an atheist all of their life, babies for example, may never have even considered the existence of a god.

I think you’ve caught me out on a piece of rhetoric. (It’s rather nice rhetoric, though, don’t you think? )
.
But you have made me realise I need to clarify something. Thanks!
.
In a sense, both atheists and Christians “decide…too soon”. Atheists deny God, presuming that evil is ultimate. Christians, believing that God is ultimate, wait for him to bring an end to evil.
.
But both decisions are made in advance of Christ’s return, when the truth of the matter will be evident to all. Or, from the atheist’s perspective, both decisions are made in advance of death, when the truth of the matter would be evident to all except for the minor hitch that we won’t be around to perceive it.
.
In any case, I’d want to go one step further and argue that the Christian’s decision is not in fact “too soon”, because God’s victory over evil is already seen in Christ’s death and resurrection. It is not a blind hope, but a hope based on what God has already revealed in history.

In the final analysis, one of them must go. The atheist’s mistake is to decide which it will be too soon.

This kind of assumes that the atheist once held some theistic position doesn’t it? After all, someone who has been an atheist all of their life, babies for example, may never have even considered the existence of a god.