Science is inherently atheistic

[Amarok]

*commitments

Yes, they certainly do.

Have you heard claims made by religious people? Have you rejected these claims? 

When you rejected them, did you do so based on reasons, or based on no reasons? If you had reasons to reject the claims made by religious people, then it means you did so according to certain standards. I don't know what they are in your case, but typically such standards include "revelation is not a reliable source of information," or "only repeatable empirical evidence tells us about the world." These are intellectual commitments.

They may very well be good intellectual commitments, but they are nonetheless commitments. 

Not accepting that which is asserted with nothing can be rejected with nothing . So no it not a commitment 

I try not to leave my atheists out in the weather. Their colors fade. 

A Nietzschean fundamentalist of the type I describe would be an atheist. However, I have never encountered such an atheist on any Internet forum. Have you? 

Said person may be an atheist but again their Nietzschean fundamentalism isn't atheism . 

The belief that scientific and math statements have a meaningful connection to the physical world is a metaphysical view. See The Metaphysical Foundations of Modern Science 

by E. A. Burtt.

Once again that's not atheism 

4. Not accepting Religious claims is not using a vie

The inability of the theist to justify his beliefs 

Atheism per se is not a shared system of beliefs. All the atheists with whom I have spoken on web sites like this one hold a number of beliefs in common. 

Which simply makes them personnel not atheism