Lest this thread get too far off track, let's get back to metaphysics shall we?
(Gosh, you don't see THAT statement too often.)
Here is the ironic thing, as evidenced by recent back and forth:
Those who profess belief in God seem to assume that, because
He has regard for the suffering children, they aren't required to have any.
Whereas those who accept the reality of a hard, impersonal universe take an opposite tack. The universe itself may care nothing for life--as all available evidence suggests--but that doesn't preclude humans from caring.
It is also possible to have empathy for the starving child, even while realizing that little can be done personally.
If I had an extra million dollars to send to Sally Struthers tomorrow, would it be money well spent? Probably not. Most of the aid money sent by well-meaning westerners winds up in the pockets of thugs. If anything, ill-considered charity just makes things worse. Clothing donations, for example, result in a glut of American t-shirts being sold on the black market... consequently smothering any hope of a local textile industry. And so on.
Of course, some really are making a difference -- like
these guys. Note, too, that the difference makers have a laser-like focus on delivering real solutions to real problems. They aren't distracted by the selfish imperative of handing out bibles.
Which in turn begs the question: who is truly more compassionate?
The heathens who give with no thought of cosmic gain?
Or the believers who give with visions of sugar plums dancing in their heads?
