Astonishing. At least this is honest. You are completely incapable of distinguising your science from your atheism.
First, as someone else has pointed out, the notion that the pursuit of knowledge requires putting certain classes or categories of explanation off the table a priori, i.e., based on presupposition, is profoundly unscientific, and is in fact itself religious.
Second, by whom, when, and where exactly was it decided what "science" is? Some appointed judge somewhere? Some little oligarchy? I could have sworn the issue was the matter of considerable philosophical discussion, but apparently it was settled somewhere, presumably by judicial fiat.
Third, the word science comes from the word scio, which is Latin for "I know", or knowledge. It's about the pursuit of truth and accurate knowledge. Atheism is the view that there is no God. Remove your presuppositions from your science and your science will get a lot better.
To try to proselytize for your philosophical naturalism under the trojan horse of arbitrarily defined science is mischievious, to say the least.
This has been discussed to death. Science is about explanaining the natural universe. Science does not and cannot address the supernatural. Any explanation that invokes supernatural elements, including gods, is not science and it is dishonest to label it as such. It might be true, but that doesn't make it science. Complaining that you don't like the natualistic approach of science is simply purile whining.