The story was good, I'm definitely happy to live in a time with such easy access to information, but as for the actual argument, haven't we all heard this before? That doesn't diminish it, but I'm surprised by how new it seems to many people. It's been argued forever. I'm sure it goes back much further than this, but here's a passage from 2005's "Sense and Goodness Without God" (http://www.amazon.com/Sense-Goodness-Without-God-Metaphysica...):
But if the idea of a god is inherently illogical (if the very idea is self-contradictory or meaningless), or if it is contradicted by the evidence, then there are strong positive reasons to take a harder stance as an atheist – with respect to that particular god. For in this sense, even believers are strong atheists – they deny the existence of hundreds of gods. Atheists like me merely deny one more god than everyone else already does – in fact, I deny the existence of the same god already denied by believers in other gods, so I am not doing anything that billions of people don’t do already.
But if the idea of a god is inherently illogical (if the very idea is self-contradictory or meaningless), or if it is contradicted by the evidence, then there are strong positive reasons to take a harder stance as an atheist – with respect to that particular god. For in this sense, even believers are strong atheists – they deny the existence of hundreds of gods. Atheists like me merely deny one more god than everyone else already does – in fact, I deny the existence of the same god already denied by believers in other gods, so I am not doing anything that billions of people don’t do already.