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.

This is the line of thought that got me to abandon strict atheism, as if we are in a simulation (something I allow to be plausible if not probable) surely the computer running the simulation would be God.

The concept of God in Abrahamic mythology isn't about ancient beings that colonized the Earth. It's about a being that purposefully constructed our celestial sphere for our benefit. And most polytheist religions used gods as a proxy for natural phenomena that they couldn't explain otherwise (such as lightning, seasons, day/night, crop yield, etc).