Re: You think that...

...because he supports a worldview that you also support, and it's one that applauds the scientific method while insisting that method not be applied to any phenomena that may invalidate that worldview if any validity to it can be established. Atheists of the school that you and Dante belong to show a strong bias towards even the thought of applying research to any phenomenon that can be remotely attributed to religion.

No. Metaphysical claims fall into two categories: those which can be tested empirically (e.g. things in the physical world can be moved by poltergeists), and those which cannot (e.g. God lives in an alternate reality that cannot be accessed by us). Scientists should test any claim which can be verified or falsified, including anything metaphysical, and they have. What they have found is . . . nothing that verifies the presence of anything metaphysical. Which means further studies are a waste of time and resources that can best be used elsewhere. As LGs likes to say, the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. It's even more insane to do that when a lot of money is on the line. Hey, if you wanna put your money up to keep testing this stuff till you get the results you want, go right ahead. No one's stopping you. But serious scientists spend their time pursuing serious science.

The other type of metaphysical claim is even more useless to pursue, because, by definition, they transcend the empirical realm (really they all do--the very definition of 'metaphysical' is beyond the physical--how can one test with physical means that which is outside of physicality?) But some claims can be tested in effect, and those have been tested and found wanting.

However, I remain an agnostic. If you come with some way to verify the presence of ghosts, I will be the first to congratulate you and will absolutely and happily eat my words. Needless to say, I don't expect it will ever happen.

An ideology based on a knee-jerk hatred of religion rather than an objective deconstruction of what it asks about the universe is not going to be either scientific or rational.

You are poisoning the well. My hatred of religion has no bearing on whether God exists or not (just as my feelings about little girls being sexy has no bearing on whether or not little girls who enjoy sex exist), and there are literally tons of scientists who do not hate religion but still support my contention that God does not exist. So your dismissal of my views based on my feelings about religion is just a way for you to convince yourself and others that you're right. You can dismiss my opinion out of hand because of my bias, and therefore you never have to be wrong. Like I said, poisoning the well.