Science is inherently atheistic

[Angrboda]

---

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.

---

Defined above. Science is a great tool for describe the natural world, but if a supernatural one exists, we would need a different tool. Which would then give us understanding about something, making it natural. That's the process science uses to debunk supernatural claims.

Since you weren't quoting anyone, your post leads nowhere. Please link or post said definition. If it's the usual "supernatural is that which is not natural" then that doesn't wash. Apophatic definitions aren't real definitions. If I define the contents of my apartment as those things which are not outside my apartment, that doesn't tell you what those things are because the class involved is necessarily indeterminate.