First of all, I want to thank you for your amazing answer.

I've joined Steemit lusting for these kind of questions.

And to answer to your questions, I think, I might have phrased my point somewhat wrong or with ambiguity. Because you brought a valid point, and it's exactly the one I was trying to make.
I was trying to say that a hypothesis is scientific if we have the means to prove it or disprove it.

If I say that God exists, that is not a scientific theory in Popper's view, because I cannot gather the necessary empiric data to prove it or refute it.

And I completely agree with you. Some ideas are indeed deemed as valid as any other simply because they cannot be disapproved; or even worse - they have weak arguments at their core that is considered "proof", and might even have bad consequences in case of adoption.

So our world is full of a lot of bullshit about almost everything.
Hey, even a lot of what I'm talking about might be part of it.
That's why I advocate for judicious discernment.

But through all that crap I believe are some gems for our "soul". That can help us cope with the harshness and coldness of universe.

I'm speaking here in a pragmatic sense about our beliefs, points of view that are hard to prove and are highly subjective. I can't scientifically prove that I will succeed in a certain area, but what is better to believe? That I will have a chance or that I will have no chance at all? One brings optimist, hope and action, the other paralysis and cynicism.
But yes, I believe idea relativism should be used sparingly, and Only where science is limited by its empirical imperative.