If you call this a gambit you seem to agree that stuff like wonders and virgin birth are only a small part of religions. Because a gambit is small sacrifice to get to a advantageous position.
No, that's gambit in reference to chess. In normal, colloquial English "gambit" means strategy (perhaps risky strategy) or, in this case "attempt to change or manipulate the topic of conversation."
So if you still believe this argument needs debate then you must think that science can prove moral values wrong or how rituals should be done.
That's a strawman. We're talking about religion, not moral values. Why should we think religion and moral values are equivalent?
To give you a bit more of a favorable reading I'd say you personally define religion as something more akin to what most people would call "spiritualism" or something like that. Acknowledging forces greater than yourself, attempting to do good etc. etc. Most people think of "religion" as organized religion, with detailed doctrines etc. The first may or may not be incompatible with science, the second is almost always in conflict with science.