It's not a fair question. Falsifiability is only relevant to scientific theories and their controls, having to do with empiricism. Atheism is the only of the three that claims to have some sort of scientific backing; a view rejected by the sciences and scoffed at by most.

Utilizing logic =/= science.

All views have "reason(s)", and their premises can be pressed, but most often not scientifically. For example, most of Judaism, Islam, and Christianity's claims are historical, like Mohammad meeting the Angel Gabriel. An atheist will leap to saying angels don't exist because science somehow (if they do this, just ask them for the scientific study on angels and what branch of science is concerned with angels), but it's a theological historical claim, and history itself cannot be tested, repeated, observed, empirically falsified, etc.

Most people believe these histories because of the other truths of their cultures and that they seem to "work". If I start a Ford car and it works and is extraordinary to me, and I'm told that Henry Ford was an alien by people I trust, I'll believe it. This is how atheists can think their views are "scientific" or that science is a worthy endeavor (after all, it may have destroyed the world in Climate Change, and almost has (and could) in a flash with fusion bombs--which, from a Darwinian perspective, questions whether it's a worthy endeavor, which atheists will never do because of the Hubble. It's the same cargo = trust and rationalizing logic).

Believing you are completely logical is called naive realism.

Not being able to know that is called the Dunning-Kruger Effect.

There are reasons to be Christian, Buddhist, atheist, Muslim, agnostic, etc. There is a logic to it within their own individual framework. That framework can be challenged, but not usually via natural science, and if they are said views can adapt.

I find the reasons for deism most convincing. For our tier of knowledge at this time, I do believe that the only justifiable views are agnosticism and deism. The rest aren't that hard to demonstrate faulty.