Actually, yes.

When Atheists start to misrepresent why and what the faithful believe, and become overzealous, they become reactionaries.

Not only might they close the minds of questioning believers due to their meanspiritedness, but they may drive casual doubters from choosing to ally with Atheism. ( Think of all the young women who clearly ARE Feminists but who refuse to declare alliance with militant misandrists. )

The flaws can be pointed out without the mockery we sometimes see at GC.

The downside to mocking all religion about everything is that it forces away the very folks who haven't given their doctrinal positions much thought.

If Atheists speak just to the flaws; this allows the party who might not know that Genesis 1 and 2 don't jibe to think that maybe THEY aren't being derided. Which then allows the objection to slip in under the radar and possibly influence a future closer reading of Genesis.

So in the long run, an avoidance of blanket condemnation serves both the faithful and the cause of Atheism.

"The shortest description of my belief is often I don't believe in your God."

In most regards that IS Atheism.

This is one of Sam Harrris' arguments. The faithful both know and practice Atheism. They do so consistently for every faith both living and dead EXCEPT for the one they adhere to. If they just applied the same "outsider's" standard they do the the proofs that they should convert, then they would reject their own faith too.

Dante