That is one way of putting it. Demonstrating internal contradictions in their belief system is a more effective way of dealing with the theocentric mind than any fact-based argument. The theocentric mind developed ways of neutralizing inconsistencies of their beliefs with facts - cf. the concept of the "miracle" or mixing falsified theories with facts and claiming that what is considered a "fact" may later be proved false.
However, internal inconsistencies or their belief systems are much difficult to deal with, especially when they cast doubt on the attributes of their deities that they hold in high esteem. The classical example, that caused much theological spin to be written is the existence of evil - if god is so good, why did he/she/it create evil? Of course, the Catholics (Aquinas) came with an explanation (evil is not following the god's intention), but that led to another problem - inconsistency with god's knowledge (does god know who will and who will not follow his/her/its intentions).
However, the quoted piece adds another element - humor. Logical arguments are not enough in dealing with the theocentric mind - you also need to inject some humor, to ridicule their position. There is very little defense against ridicule. My favorite trick is to first ask whether god is perfect in every way - and get the expected affirmative answer. Then task whether god is male or female, usually in response to the use of the pronoun "he" in reference to the heavenly fantasy. The typical answer is "male" - which prompts my response "then he is not perfect because he does not have a pussy." When the poor schmuck is trying to backpedal and say something along the line that it is both male and female, it is easy to go for the pure ridicule and laughs by saying "oh so it has both a dick and a pussy."
Wojtek