The ultimate bigot is a scientist who rejects any thought but that which he considers scientific. His definition of science is what he chooses it to be. All thouight is scientific. What remains is to have a conversation. Excluding some thought because it does not meet your subjective standards is unscientific. Your very claim to the exclusivity of the scientific method is incompatible with the scientific method.
No scientist does that, so you are arguing against a straw man.
His definition of science is what he chooses it to be.
No, it isn't. Science is a specific methodological discipline. It isn't anything more or less than that.
All thouight is scientific.
No, it's not. If I observe that walking under a ladder often produces bad results, and avoid doing it, this is a systematic way of approaching (a limited part of) the universe, but it isn't science. It's superstition. Superstition -- the observation that two things often occur to together coupled with the false conclusion that therefore one is the cause of the other -- is actually a systematic way of deciphering the world. It isn't as good a way as science, but it's certainly superior to magical thinking ("stuff just 'happens.'") Both magical thinking and superstition are both ways of thinking, and they aren't science.
What remains is to have a conversation
Communication can facilitate scientific discovery, but it isn't actually necessary to it, and conversation is not part of science.
Excluding some thought because it does not meet your subjective standards is unscientific.
What science is isn't subjective. It's a REAL THING; it's not anything subjective, and it isn't whatever you want to think, pretend, or feel it is, any more than a stone can be whatever you want it to be. A stone is a stone. In order to be a stone it has properties which define it. Science is the same way. It is what it is.
Your very claim to the exclusivity of the scientific method is incompatible with the scientific method.
What you're saying is complete nonsense. The scientific method is a specific way of investigating material reality; it is exclusive, it isn't anything else. It isn't an ice cream bar or a sandy beach, or sitting around doing bong hits and talking about "God."
Writing an article with quotes from prominent scientists that call for religious conclusions or makes scientific claims as a result of plausibility arguments from theological principles might be very thought provoking and interesting, but it isn't science; it's extrapolation.
You can pretend these conjectures are science, but that doesn't make them so. They don't produce testable theories or quantifiable results, and they don't invalidate anything already believed to be known. They might be intellectual exercises. They might be valid philosophical points of what you're calling "conversation." But that doesn't make them scientific inquiries.