May I share this on Twitter with attribution to you? Or, if you don't want your name attached, with initials or first name?
Two arguments against gods:
1. There are millions of imaginary gods, which exists?
2. How big is a god? Less than an elementary particle, or bigger, than Universe?
The main reason that religion and science are irreconcilable is the simple fact that Religion is based not so much on Faith, but Magic. Magical Origin Stories, Magical Healing, Magical Changes, Magical Plagues, Magical just about everything.
Magic cannot exist in science, because magic exists at the whim of the Magician, which cannot be categorized, measured nor predicted. Thus it cannot ever be considered in Science.
In science, events and properties must follow a pattern that once studied well enough will have predictable outcomes, so that identical and very similar events and properties can have fairly accurately predicted outcomes using derivatives of the same pattern.
No such predictable patterns exist if the outcomes are simply at the whim of a Magician.
Thus Magic/Religion has no place in Science.
They are obviously completely Irreconcilable.
Faith in the abilities and nature of a Magician/god, is completely different to Faith in a well tried, tested and proven procedure or Theory like Evolution!
My opinion is, that the only conclusion is:
Science researches the reality and developments of matter. One development of matter is the human brain's activity. Religions are results of billions different human brains activity.
I think that what you assert depends on how you define religion. Certainly the Abrahamic religions (and others) are mutually exclusive with science. But you include spirituality in your claim, and I can't agree with that. The definition of the word religion has changed dramatically in the last 200 years. It used to also include the idea of a personal worldview - which has nothing to do with gathering adherents.
The problem with spirituality is the same as with religion - how do you define it? "Spirituality" seems to be a catch-all for everything from those who want a prime mover but no religion to go with it to those who associate spirituality with awe and wonder. As for myself, I cut the word down to its root - "spirit" - and my question is simple: is there anything that can be directly associated with the word? What spirit, where is it, how is it quantified? I can feel both awe and wonder without associating either with a supernatural agency.
Spirit and spirituality have no more practical referent than god does, and I dismiss them all.
I don't believe in the supernatural. If it exists, it's natural. The term spiritual fits lacking another word -- perhaps consciousness? I don't know what else to call it and be understood.
Certainly the concept of entanglement has been proven, and that brings up another dimension. Is it a supernatural dimension? Heck no. If it exists, it's natural. But it should not be ignored any more than dark energy and dark matter should be ignored. They may be invisible to the eye, but they can be indirectly measured. Can my beliefs be objectively measured? Some of them yes. But some can only be subjectively measured, but when a prepronderance of often repeated evidence supports my view, there is nothing wrong with my accepting it.
As I do not seek to force my beliefs on others, what's the problem with my creating and defining a worldview that has a non-deity energy component? It seems to me that when atheism starts demanding that my views conform to some standard, then atheism is turning itself into a religion.
Feel free to dismiss what you want. That's what we have brains for. That's what freedom is about.