Given that the santa analagy can have two meanings (Yes, ignoring the surrealist for the sake of expediency)

Then it could mean either:
1) All the characterisitics carry in the analagy, such that it would be derogatory to religous persons,

OR

2) The way it was intended, carrying only the properties that it is A) Something of common ground to deem untrue (for reasons of evidence), without offending persons of other religions, and B) It is something that others take on faith, and as such is a useful tool to allow comprehension between those who would otherwise place themselves into groups.

BUT: "So obviously contrary to reality that anyone who asserts it is either a dope, or thinks I'm a dope" is certainly true of the former. The atheists had counted on how obviously the first interpretation was wrong (unless you assume that the person bieng spoken to is stupid), so the interpretation would naturally shift to the latter.

However, it was not expected that there were those who would assume that the poster thought the responder foolish, therefore changing the analagy to the first situation.

This creates a discrepancy between what was rapidly becoming two sides, such that those who made the analagy saw it as the harmless second form, whereas those who took offense saw it as the not-so-nice first choice. That also explains both the 'whiney' comments, and the anger.

Well, I am glad that cleared that up. Good that we finally agree on something, at least (though, yes, as always I may be in error in my understanding of "So obviously contrary to reality that anyone who asserts it is either a dope, or thinks I'm a dope", so I cannot say for certain that we agree, but I sincerely hope so)

Cheers, will pass this on,
R_A.