"1. You are also ignoring the History of Science; you ignore that models concerning deities were dropped from modern science in the scientific revolution."

No one ignored the moronic inept idiotic statements made by the first scientists that brought God into their theories. THOSE THEORIES COULD NOT BE PROVED AND SO THEY WERE ABANDONED. Show me one God theory that has survived! Science does not survive on dogmatic beliefs. Unlike Religion.

" If deities suddenly become scientifically valid, then you could somehow begin to try to disregard that Science is atheistic."

Another inane comment. Calling science atheistic is like calling a clock atheistic. Atheism is about "BELIEF." Ask science if it believes in "this" god and science will ask you what the qualities are of the god you are asserting exists. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT SCIENCE DOES NOT FIND A CLAIM FALSE? You give science the claim and it tests it. If it can not be tested it is called "unfalsifiable." It can not be proved false. THAT DOES NOT MEAN IT IS TRUE. IT ONLY MEANS YOUR ASSERTION HAS NOT MET ANY REASONABLE STANDARD OF TESTABLE TRUTH.

Science is a method of inquiry that requires the suspension of belief to work. Science explores the facts and from facts it draws theories (models) about the facts. Science neither points to absolute truth or identifies things that are false. This is why the burden of proof is on the theist. Science is descriptive and not prescriptive. Only creationist BS (religion described as science is prescriptive.) A ROCK, A MATHEMATICAL FORMULA, A CUP OF WATER, IS NOT ATHEIST. There is nothing atheistic about science.

1. Science definitely identifies that things are false, i.e. Science can falsify things. This is one of the most important aspects or pillars of Science. [Wikipedia/Falsifiability]

2. Atheism describes atheism in the broadest science, as the absence of belief. See my prior responses regarding how the age of enlightenment unavoidably attempted to avoid religious endeavour and deities.

Care to answer my question below:

Blue Grey Brain's words.
Why do you think astrology, which concerns deities, was replaced by astronomy, which doesn't concern deities? [See Wikipedia/astrology and astronomy]

Science is defined as the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment. So all supernatural and unfalsifiable claims are by definition unscientific.

This doesn't mean science makes assertions about such claims, it means they are viewed as "not even wrong" and can't therefore advance scientific knowledge, even if they are false, as there no scientific way to evidence this, which is wht unfalsifiable means of course.

However religions and the religious make plenty of claims that are demonstrably falsifiable and science can certainly assess these. Like the research that showed intercessory prayer when assess in properly double blind clinical trials showed it had no discernible effect. Then of course the religious won't accept the evidence, and instead pour fourth with desperate rationalisations, such as "god can't be tested". You can't help but notice this objection wasn't an issue until it failed, and of course would have not been used had the evidence supported those beliefs. Selection bias is something all superstitious people must have to wave away cognitive dissonance. Selection bias is anathema to the scientific method, make of that what you will.

I don't think it is accurate to describe science as atheistic, but rather as secular. It's like claiming science is aunicorn endeavour.

I upvoted your response, because I mostly agree.

However, Wikipedia/Atheism broadly describes atheism to mean lack of belief. I refer to the broad description of atheism thereafter.

You keep giving definitions that completely debunk your claims. When religions make claims SCIENCE INVESTIGATES THEM THE EXACT SAME WAY IT WOULD INVESTIGATE ANY CLAIM.

Your feelings are noted, but facts don't care about your feelings. I don't make any case that Science says Gods don't exist, but I do trivially show that Science rejects belief in the existence of deities, just as the broad definition of atheism underlines.

You are conflating the fact that Science can analyse the truth value of religion, with some false idea that Science is therefore not non-religious.

"Atheism is nothing more than the lack of belief in any deities."

"Science is defined as the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment. So all supernatural and unfalsifiable claims are by definition unscientific."

The only link between science and atheism is that as a person studies more and more science, also depending on what science but mostly into the physical sciences, a person will tend to become atheistic. That is the ONLY commonality between science and atheism. Science is NOT inherently atheistic. Rather, science tends to cause atheism due to the need for the mental faculties of critical thinking, logical and deductive reasoning, and rational and analytical thought. That is also the reason why most persons will lose their religiosity as they progress through secular university learning. When a person begins applying those mental faculties to their religion, they begin to see how religion is a lie and its texts are nothing more than a plagiarized collection of myths and legends.

Additionally, as was the case with me, some persons are born with a brain and mind that just does NOT think like most other persons. As me dad told me, "Your brain and mind thinks like a computer. If it is not logical or rational, it does not compute." That was also the problem I had with humor. It was not until I was married and me wife helped explain humor that I actually started finding humor funny.

rmfr

An obvious point of the contention is the definition of atheism you've used. It's probably best to avoid using wikipedia if you really want to deal with things rigorously. Try using SEP or other credible sources on philosophy of religion. You're free to browse the sources on a wikipedia page if you want. From SEP "Therefore, in philosophy at least, atheism should be construed as the proposition that God does not exist (or, more broadly, the proposition that there are no gods)."

Obviously science doesn't operate under the acceptance of atheism. Nor in fact, does it operate under a lack of belief in god. Science really has nothing to do with the question of theism/atheism so I don't know why you're shoving them together.

"However, atheistic scientists are scientists that tend to objectively analyse the truth value of things including religion"

But major parts of religion clearly can't be answered by scientific tools. So why would this be a good thing to try to do?

1. So, Science, which for example, has demonstrably dropped deity related things, such as astrology, supposedly does not reject belief in the existence of Gods? ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

2. Unbeknownst to you Wikipedia is reasonably +90% accurate, and is growing in accuracy, and it consists of several peer reviewed references. You may want to google what valid scientific references are.