Science is inherently atheistic

[Belacqua]

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

Normally people say, "that which is asserted without evidence can be rejected without evidence." 

This is a standard of evaluation which you hold to be true. It also shows that you have determined religious claims to be without evidence -- something which also requires standards of evaluation.  

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

Since their Nietzschean fundamentalism lacks a belief in any god or gods, it is a type of 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 

That's right, the belief I named is not atheism per se. However, the belief that science and math give us real knowledge about the real world is a metaphysical stance. Do you hold this stance, also? 

4. Not accepting Religious claims is not using a vie

The inability of the theist to justify his beliefs 

unintelligible

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  

(I have hired the personnel to staff my atheism.)

The shared beliefs do not define atheism. Still, they are commonly held beliefs among 21st century anglophone atheists.