Again you misunderstood my argument. I was implying that Christians always assert that there is a god, to which the burden of evidence is on them. I don't have to disprove the existence of a god of one cannot be proven to exist in the first place. It's not my fault that no Christian can prove their religion to be true. I think you misunderstand atheism. We aren't out to disprove god, we simply don't believe in him because there is no concrete evidence of him. Atheists will simply say "I don't believe in a god because there is no evidence to support the existence of one." Which is not remotely the same as saying "god doesn't exist at all." You're implying that atheism is a believe that there is no god but it is actually the lack of belief in one.
"How was the universe created?"
Bro lemme tell you about the big bang. We know for a fact that something has to come from something, as the universe did. Something cannot come from nothing as the Bible very much so implies that the world came from nothing but the word of god.
"Or, "why is there an incomprehensible order to life?" "
Because it has naturally come about as a consequence of the growth of the human population and our need to make the world function and our species survive. It's really a sort of cause to effect thing. People need food? Great, we have farmers that work day in and day out doing the same thing to provide people food. It's really not incomprehensible when you use your brain. You need food and that farmer works to get you that food and you work to be able to buy that food. It's very, very comprehensible.
"Or, "how are the most basic moral principles seemingly innate, as they are present across the globe and throughout history?" "
You're arguing for objective morality? Really?
Or, "what is the point of existence, if materialism doesn't accept free will?"
That's a whole other discussion in and of itself that has no answer. Those are ultimately just concepts. One could believe in having free will and be a materialist and think that consciousness is not or is a material thing or whatever.
Really all of these questions have answers, and I'm not sure what you were trying to accomplish by providing these examples.
This whole burden of proof thing isn't a fallacy, you see. You just don't get the point of it or atheism. If I make a claim that you've murdered someone in a court but have no proof to back that up, the claim will be dismissed as false. But if I were to provide, say, footage of you murdering someone to a jury along with some dna from the victim that was on a shirt of yours, then I will have proven my claim. Theists will say, by their very nature as theists. "God exists and is almighty." And the athirst will respond "How do you know this, and what proof do you have of a god?"
I will say it again for you. Atheism is not a belief or assertion, but a lack thereof. It does not require proof or evidence, that burden belongs to those that DO assert that god exists.