Occam's razor isn't the end all, be all explanation, especially since, "Why is the sky blue? God did it." is by far the simplest explanation one can give.
This is not how Occam's razor works. It's not about the simplest explanation, but the fewest unfounded assumptions. There is no reason to think "God did it", because God is also an assumption. The sky is blue for an entirely different reason (Rayleigh scattering and whatnot) which makes significantly fewer and less ridiculous assumptions.
As for falsifiable attributes, list them.
Okay, name a religion you want me to show falsifiable attributes for.
Religions contradict themselves if you believe their holy texts to be a single narrative written by a single person with a single perspective.
Then you just ruled out quite a few religions as even having the option of being true, pointing out that any religion with falsifiable attributes tends to fail, and fail hard in a trial of logic or fact.
If I were to view scientific texts in the same way, one might think leeching to cure the flu was as valid as using modern medicine.
This is false. A scientific paper is valid by merit of the facts and observations it presents. It doesn't require faith, it requires simple logic. A scientific paper also never indicates that it is completely correct; and generally includes its degrees of error, and what assumptions have been made that need to be verified for the paper to be correct. A scientific paper is also never evidence in itself. A scientific fact is valid by merit of repetition, not by single instance.
What you call science in the "olden days" was not science, and no one ever called it science. Science is based on scientific method, and scientific method does not allow what you just said to be true. That is in its definition. Science is never wrong, because science never claims to be right. It provides evidence, from which one can eventually draw conclusions. The more evidence a hypothesis has, the more likely it is to be correct.
If a scientific paper was written on using leeching to cure the flu, then it would provide statistical data, not to mention would have to go through rigorous peer review. This doesn't apply to modern times. It applies to
all times.
Assuming that once one dies, one simply ceases to exist is no more ridiculous a notion than once one dies, one's essence goes elsewhere or becomes something else or joins what will eventually become a whole. You won't know until it happens.
Your flaw here is that whereas there is only one option for atheism, there is an infinite amount of options for religion. We know enough about neuroscience to fairly certainly say that our mental processes are a result of chemical reactions in the brain. Synapses, axons, myelin, what have you. There is evidence that cognitive function exists without the need to present a divine, ethereal magnitude to it. There is no evidence to support that cognitive function exists only because of such a divine, ethereal magnitude. Again, a case of Occam's razor.
You view religions as being separate entities, all with very different beliefs. I view religion the way I view scientific fields. Many parts to a whole. All have the same principles, all have benefits, all have their drawbacks. I view religion as man's pursuit to understand the Universe through another perspective, with the various theologies being simply parts of an elephant, eventually creating the animal in its entirety should you choose to zoom out just a bit.
The difference here being that scientific fields actually
are different fields. Mathematics is the study of numbers, physics is the study of physical mechanisms and forces, chemistry is the study of reactions, and biology is essentially a subcategory of chemistry and social sciences which attempt to explain both the more specific chemistry involving biological life and the interactions between biological life and biological life, and the interactions between biological life and static chemistry and physics.
Religion can boast no such thing. Obviously I can't tell you to "view" things differently, because your view is a view, and not fact.
