Okay, agreed.. Anyway, back on subject... I think it is mistake to assume that the presence of evil in the world is an argument against the existence of God. That's because evil cannot help but serve a purpose for good. For example, in this case, the child starves, but that picture emboldens people to do more to stop hunger. It's the law of unintended consequences. No matter what evil occurs, some good will come of it, and no matter what good occurs, some evil will come of it. The greatest example of this is WWII, arguably the most evil event in the history of humankind, yet more good has come of it than practically any other event in history as well. So to say that God must not exist because evil exists is IMO being obtuse.
So an omnipotent God needs us to kill tens of millions of each other to understand the importance of playing nice? Could not God simply make a public service announcement?
If God is omnipotent, then He (it) is really just a watchmaker. If God really cares, then He (it) is not powerful enough to stop his creation from turning on itself.
While WWII may not directly refute the existence of God, it certainly makes one question many manifestations of the belief of an omnipotent being in modern society. The question of Christianity is really irrelevant to me as I cannot imagine a Christian explaining to me why their belief in a higher being is more "correct" than the belief of any other person who takes literally the writing of fellow, and admittedly, fallible humans.