Science is inherently atheistic

[blue grey brain]

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.

I might say the same for you.  You were entertaining the argument that because science emerged from a period and movement rooted in secularism that this is what it should remain.  It matters not that one can, tenuously link it to an even earlier movement that was non-secular.  The key for the genetic fallacy is the distinction between a time in the past and that of the present.  It does not mean linking it solely to its earliest origins.  You're just being disingenuous, and ignoring the relevance of the fallacy to your arguments.

You also ignored the point about the naturalistic fallacy, to wit, that what science is or has been does not inform us as to what it should be.  If you are arguing that it should be atheistic because it has been atheistic, then that would be a flawed argument.

I have to ask a point of clarification here.  By an atheistic endeavor, are you implying that it should not investigate theistic claims?  Because that would be stupid.

Regardless, science is neither atheistic or theistic because science doesn't, by its nature, possess beliefs.  It may propose hypotheses, and it may embody a consensus of opinions, but that's not exactly the same thing.  In as much as scientific consensus may be said to express a belief about the world, there is no principled objection to it embracing the opinion that a god or gods exist.  Its officially neutral.  It's neither pro-theist, or pro-atheist.

Genetic fallacy would still not apply. I made the point that science continues to be atheistic, and I provided wikipedia resources. It would be nice if you could provide some sources too.

Scientists whether theists or atheists, perform experiments in the lab with the expectations that Gods or angels won't derail experiments.

Your opinion regarding naturalistic fallacy is noted, but it doesn't hold up to reality. We know that so far science is mankind's best tool, especially compared to archaic science or religion. For example, Bibles/quarans lack physics/mathematical equations, and they can't be used to build technology, instead science books contain information that can enable technology's construction.

---

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.

Typical Capricorn.

Boru

Jörmungandr may have missed post 7 on page 1.
As we can see, natural philosophers in the early days intentionally tried to make conclusions, while avoiding god based premises.
This is one of the reasons why astrology which is god related, is no longer a part of modern science.

Another mistake Jörmungandr makes is that Jörmungandr feels that atheism merely stops at rejecting deities.
The scientific revolution concerned atheistic movements, both encompassing rejecting deities, but also secular activities.
People tend to place atheism in a little box, namely rejecting deities, and that's simply not where atheism ends, as seen on Wikipedia/atheism.

---

If you read any of the references I left, you'd probably find out that the scientific revolution/age of enlightenment was both secular and atheistic in nature.

• I think the issue here, is that most people feel atheism stops at rejecting or lacking belief in God. A somewhat thorough read-through of Wikipedia/atheism will underline how incomplete that picture of atheism is.
  

Side-note: Being inspired to do science, doesn't generate any science. As you'll probably find out on Wikipedia/atheism, modern science came about by secular or atheistic means.

Side-note: It is also not surprising that most humans were theists, including scientists back then, especially because mankind did not always have modern science (so religion or archaic science/protoscience preceded it) or some of the modern tools which can be used to properly disregard religion. Also note persecution of the non-religious, as you'll see on Wikipedia/religious persecution.

I do not consider Wikipedia articles to be authoritative sources so repeatedly quoting them does not change anything.  Atheism is the lack of belief in a god but good science can be done by both atheists and theists so long as they are examining demonstrable evidence and following it where it leads.  That is a secular process that has no relationship to the beliefs, preferences, or biases of the scientist.  If Wikipedia authors want too term that "atheistic" then I think they are misusing that term.

Your opinion is noted regarding Wikipedia.

Regardless, Wikipedia is probably better than unevidenced opinions or expressions.

I made a post on page 1, reply 7. Wikipedia indicates that early scientists did things without invoking God. Anyway, as I mentioned above to Jörmungandr, atheism doesn't stop at rejecting God, as seen on Wikipedia/atheism.