A radically different deity could uproot every part of the way we think about things, even logic and reason itself. So in order to stay within our own universe, I think it's OK to assume that any God only intervenes to the extent that we usually hear about, like Old Testament miracles.

Wait... you endorse rejecting the lived experience of millions of people whose conception of deity is radically different from yours, on the grounds that to do otherwise could uproot logic, reason, and every part of the way we think about things?

Wow. Um... I genuinely don't mean to be offensive, but I don't know a polite way to say this: if I understood that correctly, I just lost all interest in discussing this subject with you.

You seemed to be arguing a while back that our precommitments to "the way we think about things" were not sufficient grounds to reject uncomfortable or difficult ideas, which is a position I can respect, though I think it's importantly though subtly false.

But now you just seem to be saying that we should not respect such precommitments when they interfere with accepting some beliefs, such as one popular conception of deity, while considering them sufficient grounds to reject others, such as different popular conceptions of deity.

Which seems to bring us all the way back around to the idea that an "atheist" is merely someone who treats my God the way I treat everyone else's God, which is boring.

Have I misunderstood you?