Perhaps for students of theology/philosophy. For an atheist, having to debate them all separately creates a situation where the burden of debating each individual point (regardless of its logical soundness) is too exhausting of an effort and is unlikely to change anyone’s mind.
As such, for claims that haven’t or can’t be proven by the scientific method, the burden of proof should probably lay with the one making the claim, not the one defending against it.
Of course, in my experience, the scientific method is fundamentally incompatible with most modern religions. Hence, there is really no need to discuss these things, as much as I’d like to. You’re just going to come across as imposing and/or tone deaf.
a belief in god is not synonymous with religion and the former is orthogonal to the scientific method. questions that can’t be proven by the scientific method have no concept of a burden of proof. thus the failing of logical positivism.
As such, for claims that haven’t or can’t be proven by the scientific method, the burden of proof should probably lay with the one making the claim, not the one defending against it.
Of course, in my experience, the scientific method is fundamentally incompatible with most modern religions. Hence, there is really no need to discuss these things, as much as I’d like to. You’re just going to come across as imposing and/or tone deaf.