The issue is never about proving or disproving "religious premises." But, just like scientific premises (if you must), religious premises don't get a free pass. In order for premises to be useful in logic and argument, they must have at least got some potential to do some explanatory heavy lifting. Premises such as "God exists," or "a man who allegedly existed called Jesus did this and that, therefore..." cannot do that lifting. In fact, as premises they are crippled from the outset, because they themselves need a huge amount more explanation than they can ever provide. Predicating "logic" on such shaky premises is, er, building your house on sand...