Taking Beyond Good and Evil ∫108 as a guide:

There are no religious phenomena at all, but only religious interpretations of phenomena.

Why is it Christ rather than Buddha who appears as an auditory hallucination to Saul of Tarsus on Damascus Road?

Why does Teresa of Avila go into sexual ecstasy during Christ's penetration of her rather experiencing her frenzy as from Krishna like that enjoyed by Radha and the voluptuous Gopis of Vrindavan?

the anti_supernaturalist

If deists would display the same courtesies, there would be no conflict. But I don't know that there's the least chance of that happening in say, the next thousand years.

I do admit that I'm dragging the thread off-topic though. Should we maybe move this conversation to an open thread?

It takes two to tango; I've been derailing it right along with you. I've got a few things to say about your latest response, so I'm game! Where do you want to go? I don't know if the Reader Feedback open thread is an appropriate place, so I'm not really sure where to take this.

Comparing this to, say, Bush the Elder's remark that atheists shouldn't be considered citizens, is nothing more than eager fault-finding.

I made no such comparison, and have no idea why you bring it up.

Furthermore, I don't feel that that comparison would be appropriate since Bush Sr. was clearly being malicious, whereas the phrase about elderly grandmothers is clearly not intended maliciously.

As Wolf pointed out, such old ladies do in fact exist.

This doesn't seem like a good method for determining whether or not an idea is prejudicial. Here's an example of how you could make a statement about atheists in a way that's very similar to the original statement:

"The idea that we should always be starting heated arguments with others, like a lone atheist at a party, is a modern aberration."

Atheists who are always starting heated arguments about religion at parties also do in fact exist, but the above statement still invokes it as a mildly insulting stereotype and indicates (perhaps unintentionally!) that it's intended to apply to atheists in general.

Anyone who takes exception to such an innocuous turn of phrase has it precisely backwards and, as I said before, is looking for a fight. This is starting to include you.

Please relax, I'm not trying to start a fight, just a discussion. As I said earlier, I don't think making such a turn of phrase makes the speaker a bad person. I'm just saying that it could reasonably be interpreted as mildly insulting by some older women. It's to our benefit to avoid putting off anybody we don't intend to.

I'm perplexed at the idea that merely bringing up the topic somehow indicates that I'm being uncivil. I do admit that I'm dragging the thread off-topic though. Should we maybe move this conversation to an open thread?

I think it is evidence of how shaky and weak their beliefs are -- that they require this degree of protection.

Sarah, I think this hits the nail on the head. The reason they're acting so threatened at our unmitigated gall to say, "Hey! We exist! This is what we do and don't think!" is that this simple act does, in fact, threaten their belief. The foundations of their belief are incredibly shaky. The mere act of questioning it -- or indeed, simply pointing out an alternative to it -- is enough to undermine it.

I should have said "prejudice", as that's a more precise word for what I'm talking about. (...) it might make any older women who might be reading the article think, justifiably, that the author automatically assumes a bunch of mildly insulting things about them... (Emphasis added - D)

Well, I went and looked up prejudice, and I gotta say, I still don't see it. The internet defines prejudice as, "An adverse judgment or opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge or examination of the facts" (yes, there are other definitions, but this seems to be the most pertinent one). As Wolf pointed out, such old ladies do in fact exist. So I hope you can see that your point on "how some people will automatically assume about any atheist" is irrelevant. Ebonmuse was not making a judgment about old ladies, he was using a real thing that happens as a rhetorical device to illustrate a point of his about theists saying that we all ought to be that way.

Anyone who takes exception to such an innocuous turn of phrase has it precisely backwards and, as I said before, is looking for a fight. This is starting to include you. Comparing this to, say, Bush the Elder's remark that atheists shouldn't be considered citizens, is nothing more than eager fault-finding. Grow up and don't casually spout such serious words, or you'll only cheapen them for when they actually do apply.

It really is as if the very existence of people who don't buy into their mythology is offensive to them.

It's because they know that their beliefs are ridiculous but they still want to hold on to them for whatever reason. Other faiths are less threatening because they represent their own comparitively ridiculous beliefs.

They're drinking top-of-the-line, brand name Kool-Aid, just enjoying different flavors. Then some damned atheist points out that it's only flavored, sweetened water and food coloring and ruins the illusion.