for example, you will not take religious people's opinion seriously when talking about the real origin of Bible, although they study it much harder than you, because you don't think what they are doing is science.

Not all scientist are doing science either. A simple way is distinguish science from the rest of the human activities is to see if it can generate falsifiable predictions. I guess you are agree with this.

But things get tricky on when we think about the practical ways to test these predictions. For example, if I predict there is a God that can be generated at 5000Tev, am I doing science or not? You may rebut that God is of course a concept of religion not science. OK, so I change it to "GOD particle" instead of GOD. Do you think I am then making a scientific prediction? As we know there is no such machine that can generate this kind of energy, not even close in the foreseeable future, should the scientific community take this theory seriously? And I have to remind the rest of the world that this "GOD particle" could really bring the Doomsday, the earth is going to be sucked into a black hole unless I was funded for trillions of dollars to build a super collider.

what is the practically falsifiable prediction from the GW theory any way? How can we really find out if it is just part of natural cycle of earth temperature, which is tens of thousands years? How much resource is it going to cost the mankind if we try to verify these theories.

I am not scared by how serious the consequence would be if I am not converted to their religion, I've seen enough similar threats from other religions.