Thank you for writing a short response this time.
You have proven that science and religion have something in common.
Religion, though, goes beyond making claims. Even though it does make claims, the ones that have outserved their purpose get abandoned. For instance the view that Jesus died on the cross was denied by Muhammad and probably ignored completely by Sikhs, since Jesus does not play a role in Sikhism.
Proofs are not really relevant for religion, though. Hardly anything is permanent, if anything at all, in religion, since new religions are created every so often.
Religion is a branch of art, not a branch of science. Would you say that a painting or a sculpture is invalid, because it cannot be proven? Religion does not require proofs.
It depends on the religion. Many of the major ones claim to be the word of God. Thus, technically they can't be abandoned. ;)
Oh yes, I understand that. I thought you were trying to defend modern religions. It is difficult to see that as happening today (though yes hopefully in the future) when people are beheaded, burned at the stake, etc for challenging or asking questions about some belief. This is very common with Islam today. It has had periods of such actions within "Christianity" as well. That dreaded group think combined with human nature often leads to us vs them situations and bigotry of one form or another.
Now another thing. I think you might be equating some things that are considered spiritualism with religion. Spiritualism is not really organized. Thus it isn't technically a religion. It tends to be personal for each person rather than pushing their beliefs and converting other people.
Some of the things you referred to here actually fit within spiritualism rather than religion.
Spiritualism is still not scientific, but as I stated there are many things science cannot explain. If it can't repeat it, observe it, etc then science can't do anything with it. That doesn't mean it does not exist.