"If religion was something that could be proven, if there was concrete, undeniable, rock solid proof that one religion was right then what point would there be?"
Uh, I guess the "point" would be that we're following something we KNOW to be true? The starting point on knowing what is true after all is distinguishing between what is claimed or asserted as true and what is reasonable based on what we definiately know is true.
For example; we know of human beings who are merciful rather than vengeful. If someone comes along preaching a god 'who is all merciful' we would REASONABLY expect this deity to be MORE merciful than a human being, since gods or God are/is by definition SUPER-HUMAN.
If the god in question was preached in a manner that led one to conclude or suspect that he wasn't more merciful than fellow human beings, REASON would suggest rather powerfully that this deity either isn't God, or the fellow preaching about him doesn't know what he's talking about.
"The harder it is for you to worship God, the more he will reward you for worshipping him."
Maybe. But then it's hard for me to believe in 500 million gods, as the Hindu's believe. Does that make THEIR religion more praiseworthy?
"It's about the effort and the intention, striving to be perfect in your belief and being obedient to God."
The most that can be said about the above is.... if perfectly true it would REDUCE a person's moral guilt but it wouldn't do anything to ascertain whether or not that person is right in actions or belief. Intentions do matter in the calculus of moral standing... thus the difference between premeditated murder and 'unintentional homicide'.
But let's be consistent here: if Muslims (who profess love and honor of Mohammed) penned cartoons of him, then fellow religionists would be perhaps justified in horror and outrage since the accused would presumably have KNOWN FULL WELL the gravity of what they did....whereas Danish cartoonists, scribbling from within a nearly total secular, "post-Christian" social scene for non-Christian newspapers for a non- or 'post-Christian' audience, would NOT HAVE KNOWN full well what they were doing...
Hence the Muslim injunction towards violence for unbelief would seem to ONLY APPLY "ad intra", for fellow believers, not ad extra, against those who don't believe.
But getting back to reason and truth. If a religion preaches that it's god is "all merciful" but then goes on to preach not just extreme rare scenarios but common reasons to punish human beings up to and including death for infractions...one would REASONABLY conclude that whatever is true, the idea that this deity is "all merciful" can't be true, unless the deity is not bound by coherence and logic.
But if the God you worship doesn't have to be consistent, if morality is whatever HE says it is, without rhyme or reason, with out an inner or outer logic....then what possible grounds could a believer in this God have for being outraged with the actions of others?