Science is inherently atheistic

[Minimalist]

Philosophical, and specifically non-religious thought about the natural world, goes back to ancient Greece."

There was a bit of a hiatus there while the fucking church ran everything into the ground!

[brewer]

Science is inherently non supernatural. It eliminates (is not inclusive) of more than just god(s).

[Peebothuhlu]

Sometimes evidence doesn't care about what we may think or feel...

 No, pretty much ALL the time evidence doesn't care about what we think or feel.

...Such as data which clearly shows...

No... What you have there are 'Assertions'.

That modern science emerged by disregarding theism.

Which no longer has any weight as a coherant claim. Since many of the folks, then and now, who conduct research still hold Theistic beliefs.

Do you think atheism stops at rejecting deities or lacking belief in deities?

 I don't know. I'm not an "Atheist". I use the term 'Non-theist' as an identifier.

Not at work.

[blue grey brain]

I recommend Wikipedia/history of science, or Wikipedia/scientific revolution or Wikipedia/atheism.

All will show that modern science quite literally emerged when theistic components were dropped from science.

I think the issue here is that many people think atheism merely stops at rejecting deities. Instead, data shows atheism is stitched into modern science, and directly influenced how modern science came to be. 

• Religion had value in days of antiquity, as naive ways to describe the cosmos, and it enabled the development of modern science. However, religion continued in a direction contrary to modern science, sticking to old models such as cosmological argument or astrological principles, while modern science discarded those. Notice that atrology/religion is now regarded as pseudoscience.
  

This is an example of the genetic fallacy.  (The naturalistic fallacy is also involved, though not determinatively.)

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.

[unfogged]

On the contrary, science continues to be an atheistic endeavour. 

I think you may be conflating atheistic with secular. Many of the greatest scientists were deeply religious but their achievements meant being able to set aside magical thinking to investigate the actual evidence. I'd be surprised if many weren't inspired by their god beliefs and concluded that what they found was evidence of their god's subtlety and wisdom.

[Anomalocaris]

Science is inherently non supernatural. It eliminates (is not inclusive) of more than just god(s).

No, science is inherently dismissive of that which can not provide an adequate standard of evidence.

It just so happens religious idiot thinks calling something supernatural excused belief without evidence.  They can call it anything else if they want.  It makes no difference.   For science, it is meet the standard of evidence, or there is no cause to accept something to be true.

---

This is an example of the genetic fallacy.  (The naturalistic fallacy is also involved, though not determinatively.)

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.

No, again, science is an evidence based endeavor, not an atheistic based endeavor.  You can lump that which are without adaquate evidence into any named bucket.  It doesn’t matter.   Science sees no real difference between god, messiah, ancient aliens, or pyramid power.   So to say science is atheistic is overspecification without adding meaningful information.

Any of those, if evidence for it are produced, would be embraced by science.

[Angrboda]

This is an example of the genetic fallacy.  (The naturalistic fallacy is also involved, though not determinatively.)

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.

[Belacqua]

• Atheism does not merely concern rejecting deities, as you'll see on Wikipedia/atheism, or point 2 below.
  

• Modern Science is an atheistic endeavour. Since we didn't always have modern science, it is probably no surprise that Modern Science emerged from "archaic science/religion/protoscience" in the scientific revolution, as religion was literally dropped from science in the scientific revolution or age of enlightenment.  See "Wikipedia/protoscience", or "Wikipedia/Scientific revolution". A quick example: See when "astrology/religion/archaic science" was dropped from "modern science/astronomy", on Wikipedia/astrology and astronomy.
  

• This does not mean I am saying religious scientists can't exist. However, atheistic scientists are scientists that tend to objectively analyse the truth value of religion; they precisely align with the scientific endeavour of disregarding religious endeavour. This contrasts non-atheistic scientists on this matter, who disregard or "turn off" scientific endeavour while analyzing religion.
  

Here's an example from math, rather than science, but I think it's relevant.

George Cantor was a mathematician who made important contributions to his field, particularly in how we think about infinity. He was also a devoted Christian all his life, and felt strongly that his discoveries came from divine revelation. For him, mathematics was far from atheistic. 

The people who checked his math, though, did so from an entirely mathematical viewpoint. To them, the discoveries' divine nature was not something they could address. His math stood or fell in the non-revelatory world of pure logic. Mathematicians since have generally adopted his view. It is mostly irrelevant to them that some religious people have also argued that what he says about infinity applies to God as well.

[Brian37]

At work.

No, I do not think 'Science' is inherently non-theistic.

Cheers.

Sometimes evidence doesn't care about what we may think or feel, such as data which clearly shows that modern science emerged by disregarding theism.
Do you think atheism stops at rejecting deities or lacking belief in deities?

I think humans make up gods because they don't know any better.

[ignoramus]

• Atheism does not merely concern rejecting deities, as you'll see on Wikipedia/atheism, or point 2 below.
  

• Modern Science is an atheistic endeavour. Since we didn't always have modern science, it is probably no surprise that Modern Science emerged from "archaic science/religion/protoscience" in the scientific revolution, as religion was literally dropped from science in the scientific revolution or age of enlightenment.  See "Wikipedia/protoscience", or "Wikipedia/Scientific revolution". A quick example: See when "astrology/religion/archaic science" was dropped from "modern science/astronomy", on Wikipedia/astrology and astronomy.
  

• This does not mean I am saying religious scientists can't exist. However, atheistic scientists are scientists that tend to objectively analyse the truth value of religion; they precisely align with the scientific endeavour of disregarding religious endeavour. This contrasts non-atheistic scientists on this matter, who disregard or "turn off" scientific endeavour while analyzing religion.
  

Here's an example from math, rather than science, but I think it's relevant.

George Cantor was a mathematician who made important contributions to his field, particularly in how we think about infinity. He was also a devoted Christian all his life, and felt strongly that his discoveries came from divine revelation. For him, mathematics was far from atheistic. 

The people who checked his math, though, did so from an entirely mathematical viewpoint. To them, the discoveries' divine nature was not something they could address. His math stood or fell in the non-revelatory world of pure logic. Mathematicians since have generally adopted his view. It is mostly irrelevant to them that some religious people have also argued that what he says about infinity applies to God as well.

good point Bel.
Science's job is to discover and document facts about our natural universe. It's everyone else's job to apply all the bias they want to any of these facts. People's opinions have always meant nothing to science.