Regarding the edit:

Unless you are familiar with every religion in the world, you can´t logically make this claim.

I'd like to think we're to the point in our lives where we understand that unquantified claims like "dogs have fur" and "religions claim to be non-disprovable" are colloquialisms for "(all but an exceptional set of) dogs have fur" and "(all but an exceptional set of) religions claim to be non-disprovable", and that life would become incredibly tedious if people were only permitted to make logically correct claims. I'll settle for claims which merely provide good evidence.

You don´t claim a scientific hypothesis to be true based on just one specific observation, you can´t pick one data and check if it is true and ignore all other data, however likely they are to also confirm the hypothesis. So even if EZ is making perfectly sense, which I assume he is, it is still arrogant and unscientific to write an argumentative article this way.

As many, many people have pointed out over the years, the Sequences were never intended to be published as a scientific article.

Also, his initials are EY.

I think that it would surely help to provide examples that can be proved to apply to all religions.

It's an essay, not a Wikipedia page. The article you're calling for is five times as long and dramatically more boring to read.