Do athiests have the right to consider themselves the superior intellect?

So I ask again, what other difference is there?

Also, 47% of atheists are complete assholes while 48% of bible-thumpers are batshit fucking crazy. Statistics don't lie!

Based on your attitude every time the subject comes up:

Oh, and speaking of Santa . . .

NORAD has decades of tracking data on Santa. That's good enough for me.

It's not something I've given much thought to. However, I certainly don't feel any particular need to consider myself to be intellectually superior to any given slug, if that's what you were asking.

You would if the slug wanted compulsory mucous oozing lessons in schools.

Mucous secretion can be a valuable skill, at times.

As for the actual issue behind the slug metaphor, the only dispute I have with those that want creationism/intelligent design taught in schools is that they want it taught in science classes and seem to think that it is science. At best, it's a hypothesis. It's a perfectly valid belief, as well as a valid philosophical point, but it is not science. Those who insist that it has any scientific validity beyond being a hypothesis with nothing even vaguely resembling concrete evidence are simply wrong. Being wrong is not the same thing as being intellectually inferior. For example, Sigmund Freud is generally considered to be a pretty intelligent guy, but the majority of modern psychologists consider most of his work to be unsupported by research or flat out pulled from his ass. There's a reason he's referred to as the "Grandfather of Psychoanalysis" instead of the "father"; he meant well but was doing it wrong, and enjoyed cocaine more than what is considered reasonable. In short, Freud was intelligent, but also wrong.