I fully believe that argument can be made, just not by climbing up the hill and demanding to be knocked off, because the believer has his own little hill that he can climb up and challenge you back. No matter how fairly science has earned its position at the top of the mound, it is an ineffective approach to argument.
A demonstration would be appreciated. Otherwise it just sounds like a reiteration of Gould's call for NOMA, taken back a step to cover the burden of evidence as well as scientific methods of enquiry.
But don't apply
(for best results, use Occam's Razor)
Ah Busker. Allow me to extend my sincere warm greetings, indifferent to whether you accept them or not. Good post and fair point. (I am a bit more sympathetic to NOMA than you, but view it as an inconsistent intellectual strategy.) There are alternative arguments against religion, for example...
Theism, as a broad category, is impervious to disproof. Sorry, the formulation is just too vague, hence the resort to FSM mockery.
Fortunately theists do not limit their claims to the simple existence of God/gods.
Deists are pretty close to the starting vagueness. But if the non-existence of their vaporous God cannot be proven, the relevance of it can. It is a completely unnecessary variable in the equation of existence, an explanation that explains nothing. There is always a gap for the God of the gaps, but it is the Incredible Shrinking Deity, giving way to knowledge like a shadow to the light. What is the utility of a belief without consequences? Maybe a Deist can answer this, but I haven't met that particular individual yet.
When you delve into Christianity, the opportunities for deconstructing specific beliefs are legion. The more someone holds to the Bible as literal truth, the easier it is to deconstruct the books' myriad inconsistencies and contradictions. This is the playground of superficial atheism, and far be it from me to detract from the joy of romping in it. But most Christians are not slavish Fundamentalists- the Catholics, for example, are not Bible literalists.
For me the most effective argument against Christianity is the historical Jesus. Not the "Jesus Myth- He was really Horus" bullshit, but the man as he is recorded in the book itself. A solid case can be made that his message was essentially anti-religious. His parables emphasized action rather than belief as the key to redemption. "The Good Samaritan" was about how the priestly caste would not help a bloodied man because it would ruin their ritual purity. The key rituals of Christianity- baptism and communion- were originally understood as alternatives to Temple baths and altar sacrifice meals. His sermon about the Sheep and the Goats was about how the pious who did not aid the sick, feed the poor and visit the prisoner would be judged wanting- that charity mattered more than dogma.
Of course all of this went out the window with Paul, who manufactured a structured religion around the crucified "savior" that involved a novel interpretation of the Eden story. God wanted to stop keeping people from immortality so he came back as a mortal and had himself horribly punished to open the gates of heaven to those who could recognize this surpassingly odd gesture. I guess it made sense to a first century Greek. The Romans eventually caught on to the advantages of "render unto Caesar" - and the value of having a large group of people dedicated to public charity without government involvement- and made it a state religion. Priests- unnecessary in Jesus' opinion- became the intermediaries who would turn wine to blood in a bizarre recasting of Jesus' anti-Temple gesture.
In any case, prevailing in argument often requires a knowledge of the basic material. There are challenges in arguing with Hindus, because at the highest level theirs is a religion without gods, who are all part of Maya, the illusion of existence. Buddhism is also atheistic. Arguing with Muslims is a bit dangerous, but their religion is an obvious pastiche of Judaism, essentially idealistic, but practically challenging due to the failure to separate the secular from the political.
The challenge is to meet the believer on their own ground. Know their arguments, and be able to counter them. With fundamentalists, if you can get them to call you Satan, their anti-god of intelligent trickery- without raising your voice or calling them stupid or their superstition evil, then you are on the right track.