Rude?!
You and Eve are basically Pitting a 13-year-old boy who said “thank God”, while demanding that he understand the theological basis of his words. And you call me rude? That’s rich! 
If there’d been a person standing near the scene who’d seen the rifle pop out of the trunk, and who realized what was happening, would we not hold him responsible for doing SOMETHING to help? I believe this concept has been formalized into the Good Samaritan Law in some places.
Well, God had full knowledge of what was happening. He was there in the trunk with the sniper, as well as right beside the kid who took a bullet.
“Pssst…kid. Duck!” would have been nice…or maybe a chamber jam.
Arnold
Plus, you said that you would call him on his error were he to post here. And yet, you think it’s rude when your own errors are noted. You’re better than that, Arnold. Why this hill?
OK then, let’s postulate this:
Boy’s life being saved - we have no way of knowing is this is an act of God or not.
I then assert:
It is poor theology to only thank God for the things, that, in my imperfect understanding of what really is God’s purpose, seem to me to conform to what I imagine God’s will to be.
Libertarian - I was parodying you with my “how rude” comment.
Now, now. Parodies must be clearly indicated and linked. 
(I love you Arnold. I hope you know that! :))
Given that we’re talking about a 13 year old, I’d say right here. Maybe you didn’t mean it that way, but it came across to me as pretty condescending. “Theologically confused”? Like a kid’s supposed to have a coherent theology. Feel free to dump on the next Episcopal bishop who says something like that, because they’re supposed to be able to grasp some theology. Kids normally aren’t.
Libertarian - I will content myself with extending the hand of friendship. 
RTFirefly - then I will say that you are being overly sensitive.
All this thread makes me think is that while religious people seem mightily confused about how atheists can possibly believe in no supernatural authority, we atheists have to do a lot less work to understand the world.
<passes out the NERF ® fencing swords to everyone whose posted in this thread>
MMMMMMMMOOOOOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRAAAAAAAAAALLLLLLLLLLLL Combat!
OGRE, it would be nice if there was no violent death, disease, pestilence or suffering in the entire world. And the Problem of Evil is an oldie and a goodie to which no Christian (or theist, for that matter) is probably going to have an answer that will satisify you.
Be that as it may, it is not theologically inconsistent to posit that the same God who allows people free will to do what they want – shoot each other, even – nevertheless can reach down and assist some people, in some circumstances, if and when He chooses to. So why does he help some but not others? You got me. Why does He allow suffering if He loves us? I don’t have the answer to that.
But it is an article of my faith that while I can’t understand the things that God does, I believe he is the ultimate force for good in the universe. I believe that nothing that is evil can be laid at the feet of God, so the worst He can be accused of is failing to stop evil when He could and can do so. I don’t pretend to know why this is, but then I don’t pretend that I am entitled – or even able – to understand the motivations of God. It’s faith, not logic, and it may not work for you, but it works for me and for a lot of other people.
But as far as logic is concerned, “Thank God for saving me” does not logically imply “Thank God for killing those who died” or “Only I deserved to survive” or “No thanks to the other agents of my rescue.”
ARNOLD –
Nonsense. We can only sincerely thank God for the things we are thankful for. It makes no sense to say that we should not thank Him at all because we might thank Him imperfectly. Everything we do is imperfect. There is no aspect of our understanding of God that is not definitionally imperfect. To allow that to impede our attempts to thank Him, or follow Him, or understand Him, would result in no effort to know Him at all.
On the contrary, the vast majority of the world believes in one or more deities. You people have a lot of work to do, especially on your diplomatic skills.
Jodi - you say “nothing that is evil can be laid at the feet of God” and “I don’t pretend that I am entitled – or even able – to understand the motivations of God”. Then how can you thank him for something, if you don’t even know that God did it or not?
Wow. So that means that though you criticized him, I shouldn’t criticize you?
Yeah, y’all have the right to say that the kid is a fish on top of Mt. Everest. Just because you have the right to say it, doesn’t mean it makes sense.
Well, let’s see: he thanked God, and apparently didn’t thank the people you and the rest of the local atheist contingent thought he should have thanked, when someone stuck a microphone under his nose.
Sounds to me like he was politically incorrect, from the atheist contingent’s perspective. And that’s what he’s getting pilloried for.
And even adults have a reasonable expectation that not every word they say will be subjected to GD-style scrutiny. If they hold a position or degree that indicates that they should know what the heck they’re talking about, sure. Or if they know in advance that they’re putting their remarks in play for public debate, or is saying what he’s saying in order to advance an agenda, ditto.
But even if it’s not a kid, not every word uttered by some shmoe who briefly makes the news deserves to have his words treated thusly. Buncha vultures.
Jodi, I’m perfectly aware that it is an article of faith, and has no logical reason. That’s why it’s not good enough for me.
Is that not a Sin of Omission? Is that not evil in itself?
If the kid had said, “It is not possible that God exists”, would the atheists still be criticizing his ignorance (of ontology)?
Ogre wrote:
What is evil about letting rotting meat rot? There’s no life in the atoms.
Sorry, but no matter who you are, if you say something on the public record, your words are subject to scrutiny…especially when your words point to a perceived trend in the society.
So, while we certainly are grilling the kid over his oversight (and big deal if we are…it ain’t hurting him,) we’re also railing aginst all those who’ve undergone massive amounts of treatment, then have the gall to say, “It’s a miracle!”
It’s no freaking miracle. Look at the medical charts.
Why can’t you be? Most people who have some faith are angry at God from time to time, it’s “allowed.” You can be angry at God for not intervining, you can be angry at the devil for wanting bad things to happen to people, and most of all you can be angry at people for using their free will to choose a hurtful choice rather than a netural or kind one. At the same time, you can be thankful to God that you live, thankful to people that they saved you and thankful to escape the devil’s plans for you. None of it has to be an all or nothing choice on a faithful person’s part.
How is “rotting meat” like “a living child in a sniper’s crosshairs?”