I feel like there is a lot to discuss here, in a rational discussion. I am going to go line-by-ine and examine what you are saying.

I don't know if you will want this rational discussion or will be angry that I disagree with you, but I guess that's on you. I'm just presenting it in a neutral non-argumentative manner.

>Why people believe things and their reasoning process varies wildly.

First, it depends on how you are defining "believing". And reasoning...one has to pick apart someone's reasoning. A person can't just say that their reasoning is ok, just because they say it. What one person calls reasoning might be incorrect.

>religion is not a product of an intellectual excercise

I agree with this.

>but of experience

Experiences are subjective. Just because someone has an experience, doesn't make it a fact. It's just an experience.

>that was a product of faith.

Faith is meaningless if not based upon facts. A five-year-old might have faith in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny, but just because they have faith in it, doesn't make it real. Where is the evidence for a Santa Claus? Oh, the gifts that appear magically underneath the tree on Christmas Day? That's the evidence??? Sorry, no.

>What you are saying is if you presented me with an argument you believe to be factual,

Arguments are not factual. Facts are factual. And to be clear, if someone calls something a fact, doesn't mean it is. For example, Newtonian physics might have been called a fact at one time, but Einsteinian physics overlayed it. It's not that Newtonian physics were "wrong" per se but it is for the "macro" world rather than the atomic world. Newtonians were an approximation, whereas Einstein was a lot more exact. But could something replace Einstein's physics? Sure. But there would have to be a lot of work to see if that is the case, it just doesn't fall into one's lap.

Arguments are based on the best information that we have at the time. But nobody would ever say that they have all the facts, and that their argument is based on the best facts and evidence that they have at the time.

>even though you claim nothing is indisputable in your comment

Not sure what you are talking about here. I said that "Nothing is presented as unquestionable truth in science." This means if new information, facts, evidence is found, then how people see the world has to change to take these new facts and evidence into consideration.

>you still think your argument would overrule my experience which you do not share.

I think facts and evidence are facts and evidence. If your experience lines up with facts and evidence that exist in the world, then no problems. If your experience and faith is that a pegasus (winged horse) exists, then you are correct, I would not share that with you, unless you showed me a pegasus. Show me the evidence.

Your experience is personal and happens in your head. But it may or may not have anything to do with facts and evidence. If I said that I could fly, and that is my experience, would you accept what I said? Or would you ask me to prove it by flying? You would want evidence, of course. Anyone would ask me to fly to prove it. That's what happens when someone makes some kind of claim. They have to show evidence of it.

>You speak only from your perspective

No I don't. I speak from using the model of the Scientific Method. I didn't invent it. It is not MY perspective, it is the perspective of hundreds of millions of scientists, not just me. I'm just saying what it is. You can go on Wikipedia and learn about the Scientific Method. You will see in the very first diagram that it is a never-ending circle, meaning no end to finding new information, new evidence, meaning new models have to be created with new information.

>I agree that what you consider fact is never beyond dispute

I'm not sure what you are saying here. This is weird phrasing. What do you mean what I "consider" fact? That doesn't make sense. A fact is a fact - it has nothing to do with my consideration. It's the definition of what a fact is, and I didn't define what a fact is. Meriam-Webster does, not me. But yes, a fact, if it is indeed a fact instead of something called a fact but isn't, then yes, a fact is indisputable. It's the definition. Meriam-Webster: fact: "something that has actual existence"

>and as such it would be impossible to change my mind

Then I guess further discussions are moot? Why did you even answer my post if you have a closed mind?

>on matters I have experienced first hand

Children experience Christmas Day first-hand. Doesn't mean there's a Santa Claus, just because that's the only explanation that they have. And that explanation was given to them by someone else, they were misled by their parents...their parents who are their teachers. So as it is, many people are misled by teachers, parents, religious institutions to thing something is factual when it is not.

>based on what you are presenting.

I'm presenting that there is a thing called the Scientific Method, and it has steps. I didn't invent it. So your argument is not with me, but all of science, every scientist.

>Religious beliefs require accepting there are things

So does science. It's just that science deals with reality, and makes measurements and looks at evidence.

>we as humans simply cannot understand or process, existence beyond our ability to percieve or comprehend directly unless we measure indirect effects of course

This is incorrect. Just because we do not have the tools at the moment to measure something, doesn't mean it is "beyond our ability" in the future. Just because we don't know what dark matter or dark energy is now, doesn't mean we will never understand. If something has a logical process, then we can understand. If we never develop the tools to measure it, doesn't mean there is some supernatural reason for it. It just means that we don't have the tools yet, or even maybe ever. At one point, flying was "beyond our ability to percieve or comprehend directly." Now, we have aeronautics that explains flight. Before we had the tools or ability to measure, doesn't mean that we couldn't in the future, and in fact, we have, clearly.

>that is why you need faith.

The world "faith" must be better defined. If you mean faith based on exptrapolation and interpolation, that is based on facts and scientists make predictions based on those facts and evidence.

If you mean "faith" based on nothing, like Santa Clause or Zeus, then no, this is not faith but credulity.

>It makes no sense to argue with rules limiting your reasoning and operation to a scientific process

This is very unclear. What rules limit reasoning? I don't know what you are saying.

>when speaking to a person who does not share those same restrictions.

Sure. A schizophrenic person does not have restrictions and doesn's share reality. So yeah, ok. You're right, someone can think that they can fly or shoot laser beams from their eyes, be my guest. They can think what they will. I can't do anything about that. I'm not going to agree with them, unless they show me proof by flying or shooting laser beams out of their eyes.

>Science does lead to grear knowledge and progress as well as an understanding of truths

We agree on this.

>but yourself are being religious about science

I'm just saying what the scientific method is all about.

>if you believe it is the only way to understand all things true and real in existence (unless you can prove that of course).

Evidence is evidence. If you make some kind of claim that there is a god, then prove it to me. This means things like putting $1 trillion into my bank account, after taxes. Or having 5 supermodels come up to me tomorrow and all of them wanted me as their boyfriend. Or having your god show up in front of me. There's all kinds of wayas to show me evidence. But until you do, I'm going to pretty much take it as you are telling me that you can fly, but just won't show me.

>This childish fight of science vs religion is silly. They are nor mutually exclusive and to both pursuits there is nothing more important than being correct.

I disagree and don't think it is silly at all. Religion and science are mutually exclusive in it's basic assumptions. Science looks to evidence and proof. Religion makes claims based on nothing.

And itis religion that say that they have the ultimate truth and will never change. Change is science's main and basic functions. Change as new evidence and facts are found. I'm talking about what the idea of science as propounded by the Scientific Method, not by what some individual scientist might do. An individual scientist might not change based on new facts or evidence, but they would be pitied by other scientists.

In religion, they all have claims based on nothing, and claim that they are right based on nothing, and are unwilling to change.