Science is inherently atheistic

[Angrboda]

science uses the tools at hand to form and test hypothesis. I mean we went from rotten air makes us sick to bacteria makes us sick because of microscopes. We call the miasma theory obsolete now, because it's been disproved and rejected and surpassed because of better tools. Science has always assumed that what it has to measure with (whether logic, math, telescopes or colliders) is sufficient to find an answer. That woks in physics, metaphysics, biolgy all of them. My point was that it assumes that there can be an answer, which is fine. Which is why science will never be able to qualify the super-natural, just reveal superstition in the natural.

This depends on what you mean by the supernatural. Most who advance similar arguments don't have any real idea what they mean by supernatural and so it becomes an area inaccessible to science because it is not sufficiently defined, not because there is any methodological or other barrier. We can't study plortzgraf until we know what we mean by plortzgraf, either.

---

• A quick and easy example to verify this point, is that "astrology/archaic science/religion/protoscience", was literally dropped from "modern science/astronomy", as you'll see in "Wikipedia/astrology and astronomy".
  
• You'll notice that astrology concerns deities, while astronomy does not, and since science is atheistic, astrology is now regarded as pseudoscience, again as seen on "Wikpedia/astrology and astronomy".
  

Oh, bollocks. There are many reasons why astrology is considered pseudoscience, but hardly because in some forms it concerns deities. Astrology is rejected as science for a variety of reasons, including poor evidentiary support. Your attempt to ascribe the reason astrology is rejected is on account of its connections to religion is pure bullshit.