Can you tell me that every single belief you hold (and please include the ones which you've not fully self realized) is based off a testable experiment? If not, how can you expect the same of others? It is alright for some beliefs to not be hyper-rational because we are human beings. 

All science has emotions and intuition in it. People don't do science as if they are robots. We do it  because we enjoy it, and we pursue particular ideas because we are interested in them especially. It takes a lot of work and rigor to make sure the science is bias-proof and a lot of mental strength to drop an unsupportable idea. It contradicts our primal humanity, and it isn't very easy, even for the most empirical thinkers. For an example of a highly intuitive scientist you just have to look at Einstein. He often pursued interests based off of intuition. For example, he claimed, "God does not play with dice" with regards to Quantum Mechanics. Basically he felt that the uncertainty at the micro-level was due to an unknown phenomena, whereas his colleagues were pretty sure it was inherently fundamental. Einstein made this claim based off of experential knowledge and not empirical knowledge. I keep citing physics, because it is the most rational (as in quantifiable) science and therefore would logically have the most rational thinkers.

Certrainly, I never objected to the existence of the harm of intuition. My point was that there is value in irrational beliefs, and the good of intuition is a necessary wheel in scientific progression as wheel in the progression of other pursuits of knowledge or beliefs. 

Unfortunately (or maybe not unfortunately) there is no measurement that can be made with regards to morality and ethics. It is necessarily subjective. This is a prime example of a case in which no matter how hard you try to apply reason (quantify something) you just can't do a good job. Ethics is a field principally based on emotion and feeling. Why do we not kill people? Because we feel guilt, for example. So anytime somebody tries to construct an objective moral or ethical system the end result is more often than not conflict, and the "bad" (for most people) does come with the good. This is true for the most rational ethical system and the least rational one. What is good and bad is not something we test and observe of reality, but is something we feel and introspect upon. Ironically for this matter certain religions are the ones (but not solely) which try to claim that we can quantify ethics/morals and in that case are the ones whom attempt to be rational (albeit they fail at it.) 

Afterlife is a question which we need a lot of pre-requisite science to test. First we need to understand what consciousness is, empirically and in detail. After that we might be able to posit reasonable assumptions with regards to afterlife and test them. However, it is a belief that hasn't really been solidly falsified yet, and certain concepts of afterlife (such as mirror neurons or mind uploading) have been emprically studied and observed.  So unlike certain other irrational (non-quantifiable) beliefs held by people, it isn't quite odd to understand that people hold such a belief and how they've come to it. 

I think that it is highly unlikely that life in the form of the genetic code did come into existence by chance somewhere in the middle of the ocean. If this was the case we would be able to repeat this process but currently we are not.

It is much more likely that life in the form of the genetic code system is some kind of alien technology that crashed into earth. Fully understanding the genetic code system will allow us to modify life and synthetic biology will allow us to create new forms of life from scratch within a few years from now. It is not about believing anymore, classic religions just cannot compete with the reality created by modern science.

What have you confirmed upon further research?

Yeah, but you didn't say that christians weren't in the majority, you  just said "christianity isn't even the most popular religion", but it is in fact, the most popular religion.

Well, it's just not something that comes up all that often.  It's a pretty boring subject in a lot of ways. It's not like atheists are going to get together and be like "hey let's all get together and talk about something that doesn't exist".  Unless someone is trying to use religion in some sort of damaging way, it's not something I'd mention.

Not all beliefs are based on science but fall within the realm of philosophy or personal taste.

The claim that a pluto exist is a factual claim and therefore the realm of science.

The claim that stealing is wrong reason is a philosophical claim and therefore the realm of philosophy.

The claim that Coke taste better tha Pepsi is a claim about taste which is personal and therefore not necessarily aplicable to others.

The existence of god is a scientific claim, the morality of a god is a philosophical claim and weather or not you would want a god to exist is a personal claim.

The burden of proof is also on the one making the claim that something is true and not the other way round.

Einstein did not believe in any personal god, or super natural phenomena.  When he said "God does not play dice" he was using the term god in a poetic sense.  Einstein has explained his beliefs explicitly several times, and has vehemently denied his belief in any sort of personal god.  He saw the cosmos and the laws of physics as beautiful and awe inspiring, and that was the only sort of "religious" views he held.  He may have thought there were some unknown factors at play, but not unknowable.

Was not my point. Please re-read. 

Einstein's methods were influenced by intuition, but the end results were based on reason and evidence.

- In that case you agree that not all beliefs must be based on empiricism/rational (quantifiable) data. What makes one philosophy better than another? The question of a dieties existence is not a scientific question because it is not testable and therefore not in the realm of science. Do you then leave it to philosophy? 

- I agree, they should not influence the results of science. But they do. And in some circumstances they do it positively (people try harder.) 

- Intuition incorporates both experential (poorly quantifiable data) and non-quantifiable data (assumptions based off logic.) For the matter of epistemological purposes, intuitiion is an irrational form of knowledge gathering. Yet, it is necessary precisely because it helps push us toward rational beliefs. 

-  It is only a scientific question if it is testable. Anything that is not testable is not in the realm of science whether that be the existence of a deity or a multiverse. The field of philosophy which addresses these untestable assertions is called metaphysics. 

-  The point I've been trying to bring across is that ALL people have such beliefs. Whether he/she is a physicist who believes (without any reason other than feeling) that there is a theory of everything  that can be written in one equation, a biologist who interprets that the (factual) existence of mirror neurons helps people live through others after death, a person who believes (based on feelings and maybe some logic) that income inequality should or should not exist, or a person who believes that there are beings seperate from the observable reality whom exist and have in the past interacted with said observable reality, but whom no longer do. It is unrealistic to expect an entirely rational human being. It is also unreasonable (which you conceded by philosophy) to expect all beliefs to be explainable through rational means. 

This particular statement involved not a scientific result, but rather a scientific belief. Said scientific belief however was not based on the scientific process, but on intuition.