How to discuss religion with believers?

[Scientia]

1) Maybe describe the science you believe can be applied to the "Big Bang" to validate it.  Why do you feel it is the most "scientific? By what process or measure do you give it the attributed value?

2) Also, who said "God is a magical being"?  Was it you?  If so, why did you choose to define "God" that way?  If it was someone else, why did they attribute that to God?

3) I'm assuming you're finding issues with people discussing abiogenesis, because "biogenesis" is observable and we we know it's scientific.  As far as abiogenesis, it's a competing view when used as an explanation to explain life and its origins.

4) What part of the "story" is sketchy?  Who is the determining factor what someone should  believe?  Why do you believe they are blindly accepting something?

5) Who is claiming "science can't explain something so it must be God"?

Don't feel like you need to answer all of them, or any for that matter.  They are just questions that seemed relevant when reading your concerns.

I expected an answer rather than all those questions in response, but I'm familiar with this so I'll play along (I numbered your questions in your original post for ease):


1) The big bang is the most scientific theory because, unlike religion, it is based on the scientifc method. This means scientists went out in the field, made astronomical observations, formulated hypthesis and built a theory around it. 

2) How would you describe something that defies any physical law and makes no real sense, based on what we currently know of this perceived reality? I've read many colourful definitions of god, either some transcendent being that is everywhere and nowhere, knows everything, is intangible and can't be seen but is there and you can perceive it depending on some conditions. Such elusive and vague descriptions allude to the nothingness from my pov, so I just label it as "magic" for ease of speech.

3) You misunderstood what I wrote. I don't personally have any issue with either theory, but from this topic here https://atheistforums.org/thread-52712.html , I could see that one of the main "counter-response" to atheists was the fact that they "seemingly" support abiogenesis. So in response to their "you don't have enough proof of creationism" you answer back with "you don't have enough proof for abiogenesis". I'm trying to move a step ahead and say "I don't know which one is true, but how are you so confident of your own theory? Do you possess some particular piece of evidence that eludes everyone else?"

The thing is, not being able to explain from where life originated at the present moment, doesn't necessarily imply that we have to hurry and see the answer somewhere else. If neither parties can prove it, then just take more time to investigate it further. 

4) Many details are left out, all descriptions of this god are vague and elusive. It's like describing the nothingness. Even anti-matter has an easier to understand definition. Other uncertain things can be found in my original post but I'll copypaste for ease:

Most of these religions are sketchy and superficial and fail to address many points (eg, how are animals or plants judged? And what about cavemen that didn't know how to speak and communicate and just hit things with their club? And what about people who are born in such conditions where knowledge is kept hidden to them? What about people who are born physically or mentally ill and can't really help themselves? What about those who are forced to behave in some way? If we really must assume there is a creator, then I'd picture it as some neutral and uncaring entity that wanders in the universe. No hell or heaven, just something that spawns life here and there and moves on).

5) Basically any time people ask to "disprove" the existence of their god or when they go on about "How do you explain this phenomenon? Your dear science failed to explain it, while my religion can". It's as if they expected science to be already fully evolved and fledged out. It doesn't cross their mind that perhaps science hasn't YET explained it.

Now that I've answered your questions, would you bother to answer the questions I asked in my previous post?


EDIT
@ Dr H
My goal is to understand what led the other person to believe in their religion. I myself am full of doubts and questions, yet these people appear to have figured it all out. I investigated their book but couldn't find enough evidence supporting their claims, and so I ask them directly just in case I missed something along the way, but turns out they know as much as I do, and so I'm left wondering whether they are just being superficial or if they are doing it on purpose to dodge the question and live peacefully (which is a very reasonable and understandable path).

From what I gathered so far, all religions pretty much preach the same things (love, piece, altruism) or more generally, they preach common sense, just with different tales and characters. From my point of view, they aren't even that bad if taken just as guidelines (and not rigid unflexible rules) to live peaceful lives. One of my previous housemate was from Jordan and was muslim. We basically did the same things, played the same games, had the same philosophy of life, shared food, enjoyed the same movies for the same reasons, basically almost everything the same but in two different frameworks: he did all of this in the framework of his religion and beliefs, I did it in the framework of my own philosphy of life which boils down to "don't do to others what you don't want be done to you" and "assume nothing, question everything", that I would define as "common sense". In this sense I don't have issues with these people. But when they get super serious about it, it puzzles me and I start questioning it and eventually it heats up and derails.