A question that does not follow this pattern is a non-scientific question. Questions like "Is there a God?" and "Where do we go when we die?" are non-scientific questions because the scientific method cannot be applied to them.

How?

The scientific method could definitly be applied to the questions you mention. You can examine how people react during death, you can examine the effects of a soul in the body, you could observe the effects of a god interacting with the physical world, you could see the claims religions have effect reality and the world around us.

The only reason we can't scientifically study the questions is that not a single of those physical interactions exist. There has yet to be any evidence of anything beyond the physical world. Lets also not forget that scientists can study the subjective, they can study how people feel, how people act, how people react. We can study feelings, we can study perspectives, we can study how humans interact with one another.

Again, it all falls down to the point that there is no solid evidence for religion, in any form. Anything that would indicate there being something more falls flat. There is no visible point in death that a soul leaves the body, those brought back to life report no experience with the afterlife, and when they do, the things they report are depictions they have been taught from childhood. People who feel their prayers are being answered always find that it was bias in perception.

Science can study gravity, after all, when we haven't really been able to see anything but the effects of it. We can study galaxies millions of miles away, without ever coming close to interacting with them. We can study the effects of particles so tiny that they are smaller than the very things we use to observe the world.

Why can't we find a soul? Something that makes up the entire part of conscious existence? Why can't we find evidence of a god, and instead we find evidence of a universe we grew to fit in with, rather than one tuned for us.

While it is absolutely true that it is possible something is missing, that the spiritual is truly, entirely, disconnected from reality, I have to ask, what's the point of the spiritual in that case? What does the spirit do when we find that all our thoughts, our actions, etc, are found and can be modified through the firing of neurons in the mind?

I am dodging the point a bit there, and saying why I think the idea that science cannot study a god is a point that doesn't hold. You are entirely correct in saying that science cannot disprove something or prove something that is unable to be studied. However, I can't do much to that little nagging voice in my head saying "what's the difference between that and spirituality not existing at all?". I tried getting around it for years, going so far as to label God as a simulator for the whole universe, and our immoral actions were forcing this God to simulate immoral actions, which creates the narrative needed for why sin is bad.

It may be a personal thing, but I am not happy with having faith. I can not, and will never be. And I don't trust those who do to inform me about how the world works, and how I should make my decisions when basing them on their faith. (In other matters, such as experience with interactions, life, etc, I would absolutely take advice).

You enter the conversation with one approved outcome: to convert the other person to think as you do. I do not enjoy this.

Well, yes, because I believe my point of view is the correct one. I believe the point of debate is to hone and kill ideas that do not hold up. To refine and strengthen your own views, as much as it is about changing those views of others. I regularly go to places to argue and argue for days-lasting conversations online, because I find it an activity that is important to keep yourself informed. I often come away from a good argument thinking "I really was wrong there". That's the end point, even if it doesn't change others opinion.

If I seeked the spread of my idea, I would target the weak, I would target children, I would indoctrinate, I would scare. That isn't my goal.

I also do not enjoy the idea that holding a different opinion automatically proves a lack of understanding the subject.

People believe and think things for different reasons. I am sure you also believe I am missing something, that I am uninformed, mislead, that I do not see the truth. If you believed in what you think is true, it must be for a reason, and it must be for a reason that I either do not accept for what you view as under false reason, or I am not aware of.