Science is inherently atheistic

[Anomalocaris]

Science is inherently non supernatural. It eliminates (is not inclusive) of more than just god(s).

No, science is inherently dismissive of that which can not provide an adequate standard of evidence.

It just so happens religious idiot thinks calling something supernatural excused belief without evidence.  They can call it anything else if they want.  It makes no difference.   For science, it is meet the standard of evidence, or there is no cause to accept something to be true.

---

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

On the contrary, science continues to be an atheistic endeavour. 

• You'll probably notice that modern science still excludes religious endeavour such as astrology.  Besides, as I explained before, modern science originated from principles related to religiosity, so this would be an obvious counter example to your claim.
  

You may want to revisit the definition of genetic fallacy, and perhaps observe the structure of modern science.

No, again, science is an evidence based endeavor, not an atheistic based endeavor.  You can lump that which are without adaquate evidence into any named bucket.  It doesn’t matter.   Science sees no real difference between god, messiah, ancient aliens, or pyramid power.   So to say science is atheistic is overspecification without adding meaningful information.

Any of those, if evidence for it are produced, would be embraced by science.