Schopenhauer considered compassion as central to morality, but this is in contrast to pessimistic views of human nature. — Jack Cummins

I think Schopenhauer is pretty consistent here. Consider for example the Karma theory; if everyone gets what they deserved then there is no evil because there would be evil only if people suffer unjustly. However if there is no injustice then to explain what is the karma theory invoked? It amounts to a blatant denial of evil or the irrational in the world; it does not explain why there is evil in the world. Mind you the question is not about suffering but evil (or tragedy) - people getting what they do not deserve. If there is no evil then there is no point in being compassionate and having sympathy for another but if you are sympathetic then you accept the existence of the tragic. If there is no wound, there is no healing. But instead we try to rationalize away evil in order to retain belief in a rational and moral world, that whatever happens, happens for good, that whatever is, is right and people always get what they deserve.

All actions loose their moral worth if they are based on the denial of tragic and hence the existence of the tragic makes morality possible. Even when it comes to dealing with a personal tragedy covering up the exterior is of no help if the inner wound is not treated or ignored. That only increases suffering because the pain is not understood and its removal is not effected. Suppression and control offers no solution in this regard. What is needed is understanding and what is needed for understanding is compassion. Morality too is concerned with the inner spirit of the action and hence its locus is not within social rules and regulations; but then for social morality its the external that matters.

The best attitude towards someone else’s suffering and towards one’s own is to develop empathy and understanding towards it. Even if someone else’s suffering is due to their own mistakes even then one should realize that human beings are fallible and everyone makes some mistake at some point of time or other. This way one can also be more forgiving towards one’s own mistakes. The world would be a better place if people who suffer less can understand and share the suffering of someone less fortunate than themselves. I also feel we are quick to give moral lessons and instructions to those suffering. A good word is always helpful but to listen is a great merit. Sometimes people just want someone else to listen and just listen and do nothing else. It is a great quality to be able to listen to someone else. Again that way one also is able to open oneself to oneself and can better understand oneself and alleviate one’s own suffering. This I believe is morally and practically the best way.

Atheism is the belief that human reason is qualified to deliver useful statements on issues the scale of the God question. — Nuke

No it is not. There are theists who also believe reason is capable make informative statements about God. That does not make them atheists. Second Buddhists for instance believe that reason oversteps its boundaries in attempting to deliver answers about the ultimate cause of the world and hence needs a corrective. They do not cease to be atheists because of that. Third, people differ in their views of what 'human reason' is and so if you choose to specify what you mean by 'reason' you would be unnecessarily forcing a uniformity of views. Finally if one definition is sufficient to distinguish a particular view from others then you do not require an addition.

I said no such thing.

On redefining. Stay flexible. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

You said no such thing but this is implied due to your being flexible because then anything goes!

An ideology is a thinking system. We all think and follow the thinking by actions. All people have some kind of ideology. Thinking people all think in a way that falls under some ideology proposed by someone. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

You are again redefining something - to think is to have an ideology thereby every disagreement is reduced to triviality. Hence I had emphasized on first stating the distinctive or distinguishing feature of something. Thereby we can avoid the fault of multiplying unnecessary categories which you pointed out.

I do not like the law of karma either. But my point is this even if it were true that ideology is a pre-requisite of religion it does not follow that atheism is a religion because first, atheism is simply a refusal to believe in God and it does not entail a positive doctrine because an atheist can be a Buddhist, a materialist or even someone who simply refuses to believe in any ideology, second we have to point out the distinguishing or distinctive feature of something - since there can be ideologies other than religious ideologies, ideology is not the distinguishing feature of religion and I suggested belief in a moral providence is. If you believe that to have an ideology is to have a religion then that is not in accord with facts and you are redefining religion in a way that it would loose what can be regarded as its most distinctive feature. Since every ideology is a religion agreeing or disagreeing with religion would become a triviality and if you think there has to be some basis of disagreement then that base can only be what is regarded as distinctive of religion.

The idea essential to religion is moral providence. Even Buddhism which does not believe in God believes in moral providence because it believes in the law of karma. So is atheism a religion or not? I'd say it depends.