I agree that there are things that can be disproved about religion, but there are few of those. And even those proofs rely on postulates such as the law of non-contradiction (which, though it completely boggles my mind, some religions believe is false).
Furthermore circumstantial evidence should not be discounted as worthless, evidence that suggests a religion is wrong, such as evidence of "miraculous" healings, or evidence that the bible stole ideas from other religions that it declares are false, while not final, is worth considering.
However, some of the things you call proof do not even come close. "We can show that a large portion of the bible is also immoral", for instance. Even within our own culture there are far, far too many theories surrounding morality for anything to be proved. Even circumstantial evidence (the fact that our culture tends toward one way of thinking about ethics is not evidence, its the naturalistic fallacy) is scarce here. Most contradictions in the bible are found by people looking for them, and not found by people who are not looking for them (or looking for them not to be there), similar to how cell-phone company funded researches that didn't find evidence of cell-phones causing harm. I also know of no evidence that the bible rips off older religions (other than Judaism, which the bible acknowledges) that is so clear that someone could legitimately call it proof.
Mithraism was once used as such as example, but is no longer considered to mirror Christianity.
Similarly, some "radiation sensitive" people have been proven to be faking it is proof that some radiation sensitive people are faking it. Given that some research indicates a certain level of harm due to non-ionizing radiation suggests that there is a potential for such a reaction, beyond individual people, the idea of "radiation sensitivity" is quite far from being disproved.