Science is inherently atheistic

[blue grey brain]

• Atheism does not merely concern rejecting deities, as you'll see on Wikipedia/atheism, or point 2 below.
  

• Modern Science is an atheistic endeavour. Since we didn't always have modern science, it is probably no surprise that Modern Science emerged from "archaic science/religion/protoscience" in the scientific revolution, as religion was literally dropped from science in the scientific revolution or age of enlightenment.  See "Wikipedia/protoscience", or "Wikipedia/Scientific revolution". A quick example: See when "astrology/religion/archaic science" was dropped from "modern science/astronomy", on Wikipedia/astrology and astronomy.
  

• This does not mean I am saying religious scientists can't exist. However, atheistic scientists are scientists that tend to objectively analyse the truth value of religion; they precisely align with the scientific endeavour of disregarding religious endeavour. This contrasts non-atheistic scientists on this matter, who disregard or "turn off" scientific endeavour while analyzing religion.
  

[Anomalocaris]

Modern science is not inheriently atheistic.

As soon as god provide such evidence of his own existence as able to cross the minimum hurdle for actual evidence, modern science would be the first to treat existence of god seriously as a hypothesis.

[blue grey brain]

Modern science is not inheriently atheistic.  

As soon as god provide such evidence of his own existence as able to cross the minimum hurdle for actual evidence, modern science would be the first to treat existence of god seriously as a hypothesis.

I recommend Wikipedia/history of science, or Wikipedia/scientific revolution or Wikipedia/atheism.

All will show that modern science quite literally emerged when theistic components were dropped from science.

I think the issue here is that many people think atheism merely stops at rejecting deities. Instead, data shows atheism is stitched into modern science, and directly influenced how modern science came to be. 

• Religion had value in days of antiquity, as naive ways to describe the cosmos, and it enabled the development of modern science. However, religion continued in a direction contrary to modern science, sticking to old models such as cosmological argument or astrological principles, while modern science discarded those. Notice that atrology/religion is now regarded as pseudoscience.
  

[Minimalist]

[Anomalocaris]

Modern science is not inheriently atheistic.  

As soon as god provide such evidence of his own existence as able to cross the minimum hurdle for actual evidence, modern science would be the first to treat existence of god seriously as a hypothesis.

I recommend Wikipedia/history of science, or Wikipedia/scientific revolution or Wikipedia/atheism.

All will show that modern science quite literally emerged when theistic components were dropped from science.

I think the issue here is that many people think atheism merely stops at rejecting deities. Instead, data shows atheism is stitched into modern science, and directly influenced how modern science came to be. 

• Religion had value in days of antiquity, as naive ways to describe the cosmos, and it enabled the development of modern science. However, religion continued in a direction contrary to modern science, sticking to old models such as cosmological argument or astrological principles, while modern science discarded those. Notice that atrology/religion is now regarded as pseudoscience.
  

No, theistic component was drop because of modern science. Modern science didn’t emerge because theistic componetnwas dropped.

[Brian37]

• Atheism does not merely concern rejecting deities, as you'll see on Wikipedia/atheism, or point 2 below.
  

• Modern Science is an atheistic endeavour. Since we didn't always have modern science, it is probably no surprise that Modern Science emerged from "archaic science/religion/protoscience" in the scientific revolution, as religion was literally dropped from science in the scientific revolution or age of enlightenment.  See "Wikipedia/protoscience", or "Wikipedia/Scientific revolution". A quick example: See when "astrology/religion/archaic science" was dropped from "modern science/astronomy", on Wikipedia/astrology and astronomy.
  

• This does not mean I am saying religious scientists can't exist. However, atheistic scientists are scientists that tend to objectively analyse the truth value of religion; they precisely align with the scientific endeavour of disregarding religious endeavour. This contrasts non-atheistic scientists on this matter, who disregard or "turn off" scientific endeavour while analyzing religion.
  

Scientists certainly can hold religious beliefs, but scientific method itself is not a religion, but a neutral tool. It is not there to be used to point to any club/deity.

[blue grey brain]

I recommend Wikipedia/history of science, or Wikipedia/scientific revolution or Wikipedia/atheism.

All will show that modern science quite literally emerged when theistic components were dropped from science.

I think the issue here is that many people think atheism merely stops at rejecting deities. Instead, data shows atheism is stitched into modern science, and directly influenced how modern science came to be. 

• Religion had value in days of antiquity, as naive ways to describe the cosmos, and it enabled the development of modern science. However, religion continued in a direction contrary to modern science, sticking to old models such as cosmological argument or astrological principles, while modern science discarded those. Notice that atrology/religion is now regarded as pseudoscience.
  

No, theistic component was drop because of modern science. Modern science didn’t emerge because theistic componetnwas dropped.

Consider the sequence below:

Wikipedia/atheism:

• "The first individuals to identify themselves using the word atheist lived in the 18th century during the Age of Enlightenment."
  

Wikipedia/Age of enlightenment:

• "The Enlightenment was marked by an emphasis on the scientific method and reductionism, along with increased questioning of religious orthodoxy."
  
• "Broadly speaking, Enlightenment science greatly valued empiricism and rational thought and was embedded with the Enlightenment ideal of advancement and progress. The study of science, under the heading of natural philosophy, was divided into physics and a conglomerate grouping of chemistry and natural history, which included anatomy, biology, geology, mineralogy and zoology."
  

Wikipedia/natural philosophy:

• "Philosophical, and specifically non-religious thought about the natural world, goes back to ancient Greece."
  
• "Thales, Anaximander, and Anaximenes, attempted to explain natural phenomena without recourse to creation myths involving the Greek gods."
  

[Peebothuhlu]

At work.

No, I do not think 'Science' is inherently non-theistic.

Cheers.

[blue grey brain]

At work.

No, I do not think 'Science' is inherently non-theistic.

Cheers.

Sometimes evidence doesn't care about what we may think or feel, such as data which clearly shows that modern science emerged by disregarding theism.
Do you think atheism stops at rejecting deities or lacking belief in deities?

[Angrboda]

Modern science is not inheriently atheistic.  

As soon as god provide such evidence of his own existence as able to cross the minimum hurdle for actual evidence, modern science would be the first to treat existence of god seriously as a hypothesis.

I recommend Wikipedia/history of science, or Wikipedia/scientific revolution or Wikipedia/atheism.

All will show that modern science quite literally emerged when theistic components were dropped from science.

I think the issue here is that many people think atheism merely stops at rejecting deities. Instead, data shows atheism is stitched into modern science, and directly influenced how modern science came to be. 

• Religion had value in days of antiquity, as naive ways to describe the cosmos, and it enabled the development of modern science. However, religion continued in a direction contrary to modern science, sticking to old models such as cosmological argument or astrological principles, while modern science discarded those. Notice that atrology/religion is now regarded as pseudoscience.
  

This is an example of the genetic fallacy. (The naturalistic fallacy is also involved, though not determinatively.)