Ohka:

Come on man. So the old guys that dropped bombs on innocent german women in children were "baby burners", but were they really evil? I don't think so.

There are unpleasant things that happen on Earth (even before humans made their debut) but I am not convinced that there is evil. Our sense of good and evil is most likely an adaption that allowed for us to form cohesive tribes that followed some sort of order... so that these same tribes could then be strong enough to "burn babys" from the nearby rival tribe. In the eyes of nature, destruction itself isn't even bad or evil. Hell, death isn't evil, it is great for bacteria, fungi, insects as well as avian, reptilian and mammalian scavengers. Massive extinctions like the one that occurred 65 million years ago killed of millions and millions of organisms but that devastation made it possible for mammals to gain a foothold, without which we wouldn't be here. Why is it any more evil for a baby to die from an atomic bomb than it is to die of cholera or from starvation? Death is death, and it is just part of living here on Earth. There is no evil just competing forces, and we all get to pick a side, naturally the side we pick is always "good" and the side we don't is always "evil", because as you have demonstrated here, the individual always sets himself up as the utmost authority of good and bad.

As I said before a baby on a bayonet is only evil from a matter of perspective based on arbitrary rules we have set for ourselves and become accustomed to. For example, the sacrifices that the Aztecs performed may seem evil to us, but was perfectly normal for them. Were, they "evil" though?? If looked at from the perspective of the universe it is neither good nor bad .

I think your problem is that the scope of evil is so broad and so permeates our world that you can't bear to call a spade a spade. So, tying a child to a stone table and ripping his/her beating heart out with a jade knife or whatever is okay IF the whole gang says it's okay.

Well, you might be right that the Aztecs and their priests saw nothing wrong with that, but I think their prisoners did. I think that's the main reason why Cortez destroyed the Aztecs, because he was able to recruit large forces among the Aztec's subject peoples.

No matter what framing you put on it, there's going to be a victim there that has no problem, no nuance, in finding the people who oppress and murder them to be evil. Beyond that, there are moral constructs, some of which are called "religion" which defines good and evil and to which people ascribe, not just with words, but in the carrying out of their lives and the construction of their communities and societies. That such definitions may vary over time and from place to place does not render any definition null and void. In fact, one might find a solid core of common aspects.

Now, where it gets tricky is in the situationalism. Deciding that this clear rule of good and bad is somehow inapplicable in a particular circumstance. Happens all the time. And that, I think, is what the banality thing is about (sorry to repeat myself.)

Oh, and BTW, God told me to hunt you down and skin you alive. No hard feelings, I hope. :))