One of the things that I've found interesting, in the post-tsunami blogosphere, is the range of reactions. In particular, I've found the differences between atheistic and theistic reactions. As one might expect, many atheists, and perhaps even some theists, have raised the age-old problem of evil, in this case the particularly difficult problem of natural (rather than human) evil, and asked how theists can still believe in a God who allows things like the tsunami to happen. There are two very good posts that present the two sides of this discussion, with Jason's representing the atheistic, and Brandon's representing the theist's.
Despite being an atheist, I must admit that I prefer Brandon's response, on the whole, to Jason's (note Jason doesn't actually consider Brandon's position). The problem of evil seems to me misguided, because it seems to be based on a concept of God that assumes his knowledge is coextensive with ours. I'm not sure anyone actually holds this sort of God concept (I know children don't by the age of 4, or 7, depending on the culture, as I've just noted).